Low-traffic Neighbourhoods

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that excellent question. The latest published emission figures show that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010—emissions of nitrogen oxide are down by 45%. Under the nitrogen dioxide plan, we are supporting 64 local authorities with £883 million of funding specifically to develop and implement measures to address their nitrogen oxide exceedances in the shortest possible time.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, there is time for both the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, afterwards.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be picking up from his predecessor the portfolio about glare from oncoming headlights. Given the effect of this, the 20 miles per hour speed limit is really important, because eyes do not adjust enough to glare. Will the Minister meet me and others on this continuing issue of glare so that we can move forward on it?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I know that this issue is of particular interest to the noble Baroness. I would be delighted to meet her.

Vehicles: Headlamp Glare

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 31 March (HL6792), what progress has been made at the United Nations to amend headlamp aiming criteria so as to reduce the risk of glare from LED and other light sources.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s road vehicle lighting expert group met at the end of April and agreed changes to the headlamp aim requirements to reduce the occurrence of glare. This includes the introduction of mandatory automatic headlamp levelling systems for all types of headlamps in new vehicles, most likely from 1 September 2027.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, which deals only with the aiming of the lights and not the lights themselves, and for the meeting that she had with me. However, the Department for Transport seems to think that, because no deaths have been recorded, there is not a problem. In fact, the College of Optometrists reports that nearly all their members are seeing patients presenting with what they think is a problem with the eyes, to discover it is the lights from cars that are at fault rather than their sight. Many people are in fact choosing not to drive at night because of that. Since my last Oral Question, I have heard from cyclists saying they have a problem, and from motorcyclists who say that, when it is wet, there is a real dazzle with the visors. There are three-quarters of a million cars retrofitted with unregulated LED lights; that is a real road safety issue. Could the Minister perhaps get the department on to the front foot, to get some research done and get some action? We should not wait for accidents and deaths before we do something about this problem.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am delighted to let the noble Baroness know that the department has already done research in this area. The 2018 research concluded that overall there are no direct adverse health effects from LED lights in normal use. However, the crux of all this—the noble Baroness did point it out—is that there is no evidence of any causal link at all to headlight glare causing accidents. Glare is subjective; sometimes it can be caused by poor eye health, which can be corrected in certain circumstances, but we cannot eliminate glare altogether, because of course having headlights pointing in the right direction is essential for road safety.

Cars: Headlight Glare

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to introduce regulations for car headlight glare to reduce the reported problem of drivers being dazzled, especially from LEDs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, regulations are already in place to help prevent headlamps, including those using LED technology, causing dazzle and glare. Nevertheless, work is ongoing at an international level to develop and introduce improved headlamp aiming requirements. These are also likely to mandate automatic headlamp levelling systems on new cars.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is rather better than a rather complacent Written Answer she gave me. I am grateful for that, because the RAC has reported that nine out of 10 drivers think that some or most headlights are too bright and 90% of them say that they get dazzled. The SMMT is aware of this, as is the College of Optometrists, which assures me that it is not just elderly eyes such as mine that are affected but youngsters’ as well—as I see being confirmed around the Chamber. Will the Minister agree to meet with me and others interested in this matter to see whether we can make more rapid progress on issues such as the aiming height of lights?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I will certainly meet the noble Baroness and others who are interested in this. She mentioned the RAC survey, which was a survey—people were self-selecting in their responses. In 2018, research concluded that overall there are no direct adverse health effects from LED emissions in normal use. Indeed, they might reduce light sensitivity due to the absence of UV radiation. As I said, work is continuing on this. It is important that we look at the research, but we have pressed the UNECE to make further progress.

Flybe

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This collapse could have very serious consequences, not just for those currently stranded here or abroad; not just for employees—the ground staff at airports as well as direct employees—and not even just for the insurance industry. This collapse has longer-term consequences, particularly for our regions, heavily reliant on connectivity for employment, tourism and travel. I need hardly say that with the almost certain economic impact of coronavirus and travel changes after 31 December, the loss of a major transport link could have particularly serious consequences.

Any attempt to blame this collapse on the coronavirus will not wash. Transport experts had been warning about the state of this company well before the first cough, and the Government must explain why a proper plan was not in place before recent events. We have been here before with passengers affected by the collapse of Monarch and Thomas Cook. This case is worse for some, with fewer passengers travelling on packages and therefore not necessarily ATOL-protected. We welcome what is being done in the short term to get passengers home, but there is also the loss of holidays and other associated costs. Can the Minister spell out the plans to assist those passengers beyond mere transport? Also, how does the Government plan to re-establish trust in the industry, which is taking a serious hit? Given that the CAA has sustained funding cuts under this Government, can the Minister confirm whether any additional financial support will be provided to enable it to support passengers following Flybe’s collapse?

The impact of this on the regions and nations of the UK cannot be overestimated: 80% of flights at Belfast City Airport are operated by Flybe, 95% at Southampton, 50% at Humberside and at Wick, and 100% at Anglesey, with 30 other airports affected. Many of these provide critical connectivity, often where there is no realistic alternative to flying. Indeed, some of these smaller airports might now themselves be at risk. The impact on small businesses could be devastating. Can the Minister outline the support that will be made available to communities, and could she confirm that the Government will meet urgently with local authority representatives and airport operators to agree a package of central government help?

Passengers, local economies, and of course 2,000 employees face a difficult time ahead. Can the Minister confirm what engagement the Government have had with Unite and BALPA today and give an undertaking that the Government will play a full role, alongside Unite and BALPA, to help Flybe workers find new jobs?

The talk of HS2, bus and cycle lanes in the Statement sounds woefully misplaced in this context. That will not help Cardiff and the south-west, and they certainly will not help Belfast. The words

“The Government are well prepared”


for the impact sound hollow today, as an airline folds due to a slight downturn in bookings. The impact on consumer confidence, on the likelihood of passengers and businesses continuing to book flights, and on their concerns about cancellations and loss of money must not be underestimated. Will the Government agree to engage with the relevant user and consumer groups, so they can also play their part in in rebuilding consumer trust and ensuring that passengers are treated fairly?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which comes at a time of huge concern in the aviation industry. When Flybe first publicly hit problems a couple of months ago, the Government wildly overpromised the help that was on offer, or potentially on offer. It turns out that virtually none of that help was possible, partly because of the concern in the rest of the aviation industry about fair competition but also because the Government, for one reason or another, have not been able to offer money on reasonable terms to the company.

All the grand schemes in the world will not help the people who are losing their jobs today or who are being cut off from the regular routes that they use which are important either to their families or to their businesses. In this Statement the Government repeat some of these grand, long-term promises—but, to be fair, that is actually irrelevant at this time.

On competitive market companies that fail, the Statement is really surprising, given the Government’s response couple of months ago. It says:

“It is not the role of government to prop them up.”


But two months ago, the Government were offering assistance that effectively was promising to do that. Shape shifting will not help the market. What help, if any, did the Government, in the end, provide to Flybe? Was Flybe able to defer the payment of any taxes, or was that not possible?

Beyond the concerns for Flybe employees and the passengers who have paid money for flights, amply outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, there will be a very serious knock-on effect at smaller regional airports in the UK. Some of those airports could also find they cannot continue operating. The Statement says:

“Government stands ready to support this sector.”


Exactly how will the Government offer help to this sector? There is a danger that the Government are offering more help that actually cannot be implemented in the end.

The importance of Flybe has been overwhelmingly in its routes to isolated parts of the UK. Some such routes in the UK have PSO status, but only one is a Flybe route: the Newquay to Gatwick route. France has 22 PSO routes, so, even if we are still working to EU rules on this, I ask the Government to reconsider the number of internal routes that are given PSO status, because that is what will provide long-term certainty and a long-term levelling up for parts of the country that are very isolated.

Coronavirus is undoubtedly a factor in tipping this company over the edge probably slightly earlier than would otherwise have happened, and there will be other cases.

Open Skies Agreement (Membership) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 26th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for this imaginative way of focusing the Government’s attention on a vital and urgent issue. Quite simply, if we do not get this right, British carriers may not be able to fly domestically within the EU. As the EU’s ad hoc working party on Article 50’s internal discussion paper of 16 January states, as a “third country”, the,

“UK ceases to be part of fully liberalised EU aviation market”.

It is clear that in Brussels, work is moving apace on this, an area of great urgency since there is no fallback WTO position, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. A decision is therefore critical. Airlines need to know within weeks whether they can continue current routes in 15 months’ time. Schedules and slots are decided early, with ticket prices, ticket sales and therefore the prices of package tours following soon after.

I am aware that talks are ongoing and will resume on Tuesday between the UK and US on new bilateral air services arrangements for after our exit or following any transition period. While we know that both sides want to protect current market access between the two countries, we need a reassurance from the Government that this will not come at the expense of our continued close relationship with or membership of the EU’s single aviation market—from which UK airlines and passengers have benefited, as we have heard today—along with the related agreements between the EU and third countries beyond the US, which again have benefited our travellers. Our participation in the single aviation market allowed the UK to develop the largest aviation network in Europe and the third largest in the world, providing significant economic benefits through inbound and outbound tourism, our trading links, investment in the infrastructure of airports and access to them, while providing British citizens with a wide variety of destinations.

Having mentioned the advantages to British citizens, I raise the issue of the future of important consumer rights if we fall out of the single aviation market: whether the EU’s flight delay regulation 261/2004 will continue to apply once we leave the EU. For example, regarding an EU airline flight from a third country to the UK, or a UK airline flight from a third country to an EU 27 member state, what protection will there be for consumers in any delay? As this issue obviously cannot be covered by the EU withdrawal Bill as it depends on reciprocity, and as we would no longer be a member state for the purposes of the current regulation, we will be highly dependent on the Government negotiating this compensation package, presumably in the withdrawal deal or, more likely, in the subsequent agreement. Alternatively, and definitely preferably, our association with or membership of the single aviation market could perhaps include retention of the EU’s flight delay regulation 261/2004. Would the Minister respond in writing, or today if she can, as to whether the Government are already pursuing such a possibility?

Looking more broadly at the value of this industry to our economy, according to the travel trade association ABTA, outbound tourism directly sustains more than 200,000 UK jobs and supports another 170,000 indirectly. While outbound tourism brings significant financial benefit to the destination countries in Europe, it also benefits the Exchequer, with UK travellers spending about £300 on goods and services in preparation for those foreign holidays before they have even taken off. Such outbound tourism is worth about £12 billion a year.

Meanwhile, the aviation industry is worth £52 billion to our national income and it contributes £8 billion in tax a year. It supports about 960,000 jobs, one-third of a million in the sector itself and perhaps another one-third of a million indirectly. Furthermore, UK cargo airlines handle millions of shipments every month —predominantly high-value and time-sensitive parcels —across the globe. These services play a crucial role in maintaining UK businesses’ global competitiveness and connectivity with the EU and other international partners. Any disruption to the UK’s connectivity would harm the growth of UK businesses globally. Given that UK tourism is worth about €37 billion a year to the EU 27, and that aviation and good air transport links are vital to the continuing success and growth of the UK economy, but also that of our EU counterparties, we hope the Government will be able to negotiate our continued participation in the single aviation market.

Indeed, what is needed is us being “very modestly apart”, as I believe the expression is—though the overnight squabbles between the Chancellor and No. 10, at the behest of Jacob Rees-Mogg, give little confidence that the Government are up to the task of negotiating the price of a second-hand car, let alone the future of our economy. Today’s papers are full of the row, with Iain Duncan Smith saying he is pleased that the Chancellor has been contradicted by No 10—did you hear that? He was pleased that our Chancellor of the Exchequer has been contradicted by the Prime Minister. In contrast, another Conservative MP said that the Chancellor was spot on and that the Prime Minister should support her Chancellor and not give in to an unrepresentative, ideologically driven minority. That was a Conservative; it was not even from this side. But seriously, the coverage, attention and energy that go into all this waste the chance to make a clear statement to the EU and more widely on how Britain sees its future after Brexit and on what sort of deal it wants with the EU 27.

The Minister will be well aware of what Airlines UK, which represents the airlines, needs after Brexit: most urgently, a transition phase based on current rules and regulation, open access and full participation of the European Aviation Safety Agency. However, the EU 27 could exclude us from the safety agency because that membership is contingent on accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Without it, there would be increased certification costs for airlines, manufacturers and maintenance companies, while the CAA would have to take responsibility for ensuring that they all adhered to safety rules, raising questions about its capacity—as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

Given such urgency, it is vital that aviation is dealt with separately and in advance of the main negotiations with the EU and that priority is given to safeguarding EU, US and international market access for our aviation industry. If it means the Government quietly rubbing out a red line and accepting some ECJ role in aviation, then so be it. Is not the economy rather more important than red meat demanded by Conservative hard Eurosceptics?

The aviation industry will need many things that go well beyond this Bill, particularly being able to employ staff from across Europe and having no further restrictions on borders. We will press these issues on other occasions and in other Bills, but their importance to the Minister’s transport portfolio means that I would welcome some reassurance from her that her department’s representations to the Home Office and other departments are making clear the importance of such issues.

Aviation is unique within Brexit negotiations. There is no WTO fallback; there is an urgency replicated in few other sectors; it is an industry on which almost every other sector depends; it is important to tourism, and it is of mutual benefit to the UK and the EU 27. It is vital that we reach a comprehensive air transport agreement with the EU that maintains the current level of market access and traffic rights. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurance on all the points raised today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I shall come to EASA, but that will not be included in the UK-US bilateral agreement that is being discussed; that will be a separate negotiation and conversation with the European Union. On the timing of ratification, I am afraid that I shall have to get back to the noble Lord, but the aim is that this will be in place well before we leave the European Union, to provide certainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about customer protection. The UK has always been a leader when it comes to providing protection for holidaymakers, and we want that to continue to be the case whether we are inside or outside the European Union. The consumer protections based within the EU will be retained through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, so that British consumers will be able to rely on the same rights as they have now after we leave the EU. The absolute aim is to provide consistency with what they currently have.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised EASA. We are working closely with industry on this and, of course, we are very aware of all its views and what is needed for the sector. Again, we desire a speedy agreement on this. We are representing those views very clearly in our conversation with the EU, and will continue to keep the sector updated as negotiations progress. There is a precedent for non-EU states to be part of EASA; Switzerland and Norway are, for example. We continue to examine the possibility and suitability of such an arrangement.

On the CJEU, the Government have been clear that the UK will no longer be subject to direct CJEU jurisdiction after we have left the EU. There are models—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Given that that is not quite the case, in that EU citizens will have some access to the ECJ for eight years, perhaps the Minister could accept that it has not been completely ruled out, as much as it had before.

[Baroness Sugg]

In the case of EASA and the CJEU, there is an example where non-EU countries are able to participate in EASA without the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU. It is a co-operative arrangement, and that is exactly what we are looking to replicate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others mentioned the Commission paper. I have seen the presentation, which looks like an opening position from the Commission, drafted with its own interpretation of the UK position. It is clearly designed to be thought provoking and to ensure that member states focus on aviation issues. The paper sets out a number of options but also makes it clear that, in the unlikely event of a no deal, there will be contingency measures to ensure traffic rights and safety. As many noble Lords acknowledged, we have no WTO fallback on aviation, so it is encouraging that aviation is one of only two sectors that have been considered by the Commission in such close detail. We are pleased that the EU considers aviation to be such a priority—we feel that, too—and we look forward to conversations progressing.

I agree with many points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. We all want to continue open and liberal access to our skies after we leave the European Union, and we have all explained why this access is so important. I hope that I have provided some assurance that that is exactly what we are working towards—although I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would categorise it as vague promises of better things to come. I apologise if that is the case. We will ensure that we keep your Lordships updated as negotiations progress. I also confirm that I was in no way offended by the noble Lord reading back my own words to me—but I am very interested to know what his job was in the circus.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has helped to highlight the importance of the UK-US air services relationship and the vitality of the current market. This relationship and vitality are things that we intend to preserve and to build on. However, the Government believe that the Bill is not necessary. It requires us to do something that we are already doing: to have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the EU-US Air Transport Agreement. We do not believe that we need another law on the statute book in this respect.

Health: Public Health Responsibility Deal

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I should declare that I am a patron of a charity that picks up those with drink problems, the Blenheim Trust. We should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this subject to us today and introducing the voluntary partnership, which is part of the nudge campaign to help people to make healthier choices. However, our Science and Technology Committee expressed its major doubts about the effectiveness of agreements with commercial organisations, particularly where there are conflicts of interests. The Labour Party shares those concerns. We are sceptical whether a voluntary approach can address those barriers to a healthy diet and lifestyle, which are threatening a public health crisis.

The responsibility deal covers alcohol, food, health at work and physical activity. Success on each of those has been questioned. Handing over significant responsibility is part of the reason for that querying, especially where there is no parallel government action. In the case of alcohol, we have seen no reduction of the drink-drive level, zero funding for Alcohol Concern and, despite Mr Cameron’s pledge, no action on minimum pricing.

As has been mentioned, six health bodies, including the BMA, declined to participate in the alcohol deal because of its alcohol commitment, where the industry claimed that it would,

“foster a culture of responsible drinking, which will help people to drink within guidelines”—

without, of course, any evidence of that. Those health bodies were concerned that the project gave,

“inadequate recognition of the need to reduce alcohol-related harm”,

that there was no indication of alternative actions if the pledges did not reduce harm and that,

“the pledges were those of the alcohol industry rather than of health bodies”.

The BMA, as has been mentioned, considered that voluntary agreement with the industry was inadequate—perhaps I should go on and quote the rest of what it said—because the industry has, “conflicts of interest”. It said that,

“the state should put the health of citizens before commercial freedom”.

On food, the Government have made a welcome announcement on front-of-pack labelling. We welcome that but, within days, it was undermined. Only 60% of foods will be covered, according to our figures, because Coca-Cola, Cadbury, United Biscuits, Unilever and Heinz will not take part. How can food labelling work if key players refuse to sign up? Of course, there are things that the industry can do and has done. Heineken took one high-strength low-cost product off the market.

Central to the problem is that the responsibility deal agenda is that of the industry—that is, education, choice and labelling—rather than of the health bodies, which talk about price and availability. The lesson of cigarettes is that regulation makes the difference. Higher prices and banning smoking in public places are what reduced heart attacks. Professor Hunter, giving evidence to the committee in another place, said that he was,

“disturbed at the shift”,

by the Government,

“from being a nanny to being a nudger”.

He recalled that interventions “shoving people”, such as with the ban on smoking, were effective, whereas the effect of nudging was little supported by evidence.

Where is the shoving? Where is the standardised cigarette packaging? Andrew Lansley said that packaging helped to recruit smokers and wanted to look at the idea of plain packaging. That, of course, was before the Conservatives hired Lynton Crosby, whose company has represented tobacco firms and has campaigned against standardised packaging in Australia.

On physical activity, the Government’s record is abysmal. There has been a drop in sports participation, an end of free swimming for the under-16s and over-60s, and reduced funding for the School Sport Partnerships. Where is Mr Cameron’s promise on minimum unit pricing? Has that disappeared because of lobbying by the drinks industry? It started in Scotland, first against the policy and then by a legal challenge; now in England it is at it again, with a campaign entitled, “Why should responsible drinkers pay more?”, even though it would cost moderate drinkers only 28p a week. Its website urges people to tweet the message to MPs.

The Opposition support anything that the industry does to reduce the cost of alcohol to the NHS and elsewhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has mentioned some of the companies with lower alcohol strengths—Stella, Budweiser, Becks, John Smith’s, Carlsberg and Strongbow. There is a long list, and there are some new lower-strength drinks such as Carling Zest, Foster’s Radler, Carlsberg Citrus and Guinness Mid-Strength. These are to be welcomed and enjoyed—particularly, in my case, the Guinness Mid-Strength. But we need smaller glasses in pubs and restaurants and smaller containers, including 250 millilitre cans for beer. Is it really acceptable that a large wine glass with 14% wine contains more than the daily safe drinking level for a woman? How responsible is that?

Let us ask the industry to focus on what is in its remit—alcohol strength, measures and responsible advertising. However, along with the Independent and the WHO, we agree that we should not let the drinks industry set policy on alcohol. And where are the Government? The pledges are supposedly underwritten by the threat of legislation, but where is that? Could the Minister outline the Government’s responsibility for the targets that have been mentioned and for reducing alcohol-related harm? Could he tell noble Lords when David Cameron’s commitment to minimum unit pricing will be implemented?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

Perhaps I may quickly respond to my noble friend. As regards large establishments such as hospitals, I imagine that they would use an accredited car park operator. As to the example of a discrete chain that you could suddenly pull up after the motorist has left, I remind my noble friend that the landholder would have to have good signage, otherwise he could fall foul of the offence of immobilising the vehicle.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Lucas and Lord Newton, for their contributions.

I am immensely disappointed because the response did not answer what for me are the two major issues—residential parking and disabled parking. The Minister has not responded at all on those matters. When talking to one of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, they said simply that it is illegal to park in a disabled space in Northern Ireland, and that the police enforce that law. I was also told what happened to other cars that park in disabled spaces—they were immobilised, albeit with a knife to the wheel, rather than by a wheel clamp. Nothing in the Bill will make it easier—in fact, it will be harder—to preserve the right of disabled people to park in disabled bays.

However, the real issue is that my amendments are not about car parks. There was the idea of having lighting, signage and so on, but I am talking about people’s own private car-parking spaces at a block of flats with perhaps five or 10 parking areas for those five or 10 flat owners. They do not want to put up CCTV, lights or signage. It is their private parking. That is the driver behind this issue, and I am afraid that none of the responses addresses such people’s needs. They do not want to issue tickets and go to the DVLA to find out who a car belongs to. They want to deter drivers from parking where they should not—whether that space is for a disabled vehicle or their own.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness gave an example of just a few parking slots in a housing estate, but does she agree that commonly available are small barriers or posts that you can put in place and would be very effective in stopping other motorists from effectively stealing the landholder’s parking slot?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I look forward to the Minister giving money to all those people to pay for them. They are actually rather expensive. Perhaps some of the rogues who do asphalting at the front of houses could install those posts at the same time. I do not think that the noble Earl heard my example of Mr and Mrs Hubbard, who are disabled. Where are they going to get the money to put up an extra block to stop people parking in front of their sheltered accommodation? Having to do that would be extraordinary.

I am very concerned about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the greater use of the DVLA database. There are great dangers in expecting more people to have to chase the owner, rather than, having clamped the car, getting people to come round and sort the situation out there and then. I thought that we wanted there to be less, rather than more, access to private data. That is also the case regarding CCTV. I had thought that part of the Bill provided for less CCTV. I happen to be in favour of CCTV—many women are—but the whole thrust of the Bill is for less of it. Now little blocks of flats with five residents are meant to put CCTV outside so that they can see who has been parking in the middle of the night. That is difficult to understand.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I understand that we take a different position on clamping, but the issues that I am raising are exactly the same: what do you do about a block of flats that is next to a charging car park—although it could be anywhere—when ordinary residents cannot get into their garage or to their front door?

If they are disabled, where they park, there may be a ramp; if they have to park somewhere else, there may be steps, so they cannot go there. There seems to be no consideration of the small residential group. The idea of moving the car was raised earlier. You have to break into it to move it, so presumably that will damage the car straightaway. If you have a driving licence only for a motorbike and not for a car, you might not be licensed to move it at all. I find the idea of breaking into someone's car to move it as hard to understand as the answer.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talked about serial offenders; this is a major problem. We are talking not about people who just overstay—they meant to move it but did not come back—but serial offenders who go into the car parking area, which is not a car park and where they should never have gone anyway, and leave the car there. I did not raise the issue of community facilities, such as churches, where it may be very difficult if you are going to a funeral or wedding and suddenly cannot drive in there. That was not the thrust of my amendments at all; I am interested in residential areas. Nevertheless, those points have not been answered.

The major points that I am interested in, particularly the blue badge system and disabled car parking areas, wherever they may be, or small residential areas, have not been answered. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this further and take up that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

Localism Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

52A: Clause 163, page 152, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In section 36 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (information in relation to social housing) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) engaging with the Housing Ombudsman.””

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

In moving Amendment 52A, I shall speak in favour of amendments in the same group, particularly Amendment 68, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty and myself, and of similar principles as set out in Amendment 69, which appears in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Clause 167 introduces what is called a “democratic filter” as regards the housing ombudsman. What it means is that all complaints that currently go to the housing ombudsman would instead have to be taken to an MP, a councillor, or a tenant panel member for a hearing. Not only that, but a tenant would not be able to take their case to the ombudsman unless agreed to by one of these people, giving them a veto over these citizens’ access to the housing ombudsman.

I would like to go through seven reasons for resisting this clause. The first is the role of MPs untrained in this area and the conflicts of interest that might be involved, which I think are fairly obvious. It would be a brave MP or councillor who rejected a complaint maybe three weeks before an election. The councillor could, of course, be the provider of housing, which would be a serious conflict of interest. What if that MP or councillor had already heard of the complaint in their surgery in their role of representative? How could they then adjudicate de novo on a complaint? If the councillor happened to know the local housing official, it would hardly be seen as an independent hearing of the complaint.

Furthermore, our MPs and councillors, wonderful though they are, are not trained in alternative dispute resolution or complaints handling, or in the accurate recording of such findings and giving the reasons thereof; nor indeed are most of them well-versed in some basic rules of natural justice and fairness and the handling of evidence. They will not be accustomed to awarding redress and they will not have the authority to enforce their awards.

There could also be a threat to a tenant’s privacy if they had to reveal some personal circumstances to an elected officer who was not under a code of conduct to respect confidentiality. There could be a lottery between the findings of different councillors and MPs. At present the housing ombudsman deals with about 5,000 cases per year, with a high measure of consistency to add to the centrality of fairness. It could, of course, also be a very heavy burden on an MP and councillor. I have to confess that I have been neither, but I do wonder whether they are ready for this extra little task.

It would also make MPs adjudicators. They would therefore lose their role as champions on behalf of their constituents, quite unable to advise them on how to formulate a complaint if they themselves were the people to hear the complaint. Furthermore, having rejected the complaint, how could they then promote it to the housing ombudsman?

So the first of the seven problems is about the role of the councillor and MP. Secondly, the British and Irish Ombudsman Association strongly opposes the proposed filter in the Bill. The association believes:

“Public service ombudsmen form an integral part of the administrative justice system and it is essential that citizens’ access to justice should be unfettered. Any restriction on access is counter to the principles upon which the ombudsman institution is founded”.

Indeed, one of the principal conditions for being an ombudsman is that citizens should have direct access. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman regards their MP filter as restricting access to their service.

Thirdly, let me quote from others. The Law Commission says that this clause as it stands could hinder investigations and it calls for the filter in this clause to be scrapped. The commission prefers a dual system whereby complainants could either go through a local representative or direct to the housing ombudsman, which is what these amendments set out.

The National Housing Federation believes that MPs and councillors should only be involved at the discretion of the complainant, not at the insistence of the Government. The federation strongly opposes the proposal in the Bill to deny access to the ombudsman without the MP or councillor’s permission. It also notes that similar requirements have been abolished elsewhere, such as for the Local Government Ombudsman.

Coming from Kentish Town, perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I also refer to the Camden Association of Street Properties and Kentish Town District Management Committee, which have said that they are angry at the proposed block on tenants’ rights to access the ombudsman, which in their view has worked so well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I do not think that it denies them the choice. I am happy to look into how the passing from one to the other can be done. We think that there should be an initial stage. Often, those initial stages work: a councillor intervenes; they see what is going on; and the matter is resolved at that level. If that does not happen and somebody goes directly to the ombudsman, it is very difficult for councillors and tenants panels to know exactly what people are thinking. People do not always want to go to the ombudsman and would quite like somebody to deal with the matter at a local level. That is why we think the initial responsibility for getting matters put right lies with one of those three groups. I am very happy to look at how we can deal with the question of whether it is a requirement for the MP or local councillor to be the final arbiter of when a matter is passed on to the local ombudsman.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We all support the idea that the service provider should be the first person to solve the matter and that there should be good ways of doing so. We all prefer local resolution and we all want councillor involvement. I do not think that there is anything between us on that. The only difference is in whether an extra layer should be added and whether we want a veto regarding whether people can, after that extra layer, go to the Housing Ombudsman.

Obviously I am addressing myself to those who I think have already reached a compromise. I hope that they have not, because some problems remain with the amendments, which may not now be moved. One, which has not yet been covered, is that the complaint is still required to be made in writing. Part of our amendment was intended to remove that requirement. I realise that we are on Report rather than in Committee, and therefore that may be a possibility. However, it would be a new statutory requirement. It would go against good practice and, indeed, the Law Commission has specifically recommended against it. Its latest report on public service ombudsmen states:

“We recommend that all formal, statutory requirements that complaints submitted to the public service ombudsmen be written are repealed”.

That is because of vulnerable consumers.

[Lord Greaves]

Does the noble Baroness accept that our amendments are not intended to be a perfect answer? We tabled them to persuade the Minister and the Government not to resolve the matter finally today but to give us more time to discuss it before Third Reading and perhaps to come to a resolution that might be agreed around the House at Third Reading. The Minister has given a very clear assurance that that will now happen. The matter can be brought back at Third Reading and, on that basis, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The problem that remains—and I shall explain why I think there is still a problem—is the Minister’s final response, in which she did not give an assurance that the same right will remain for social housing tenants as exists for every other ombudsman—that of direct access to the ombudsman for justice without having a filter.

I should like to say one other thing about what I understand was an attempt to find a way through. Procedurally, I think that it is a bit of a nonsense to say that you must go to your MP or councillor in order to be able to go to the Housing Ombudsman but that if they say no, you can still go anyway. I accept that the wording was an attempt to get through this afternoon’s discussion but it is a bit of a nonsense to say, “Go through your MP but, if they say no, you have an automatic right to go anyway”. That does not seem to represent progress; nor does it remove the extra layer. If the councillor or MP is to become involved, they have to carry out another inquiry—they have to hear both sides of the case. That is all that I mean by natural justice. I believe that councillors and MPs are champions of their electors but I do not think that they are adjudicators. I deliberately use the words “adjudication” or “resolution”. In other words, they resolve a problem where someone else cannot, and coming in with a fresh mind rather than being a champion seems to be very important. I believe that it would be a form of discrimination to say that just one group could not go directly to an ombudsman. The noble Lord, Lord Best, chairs the Property Ombudsman service. I was a member of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. In all these cases, people are allowed direct access to an ombudsman.

This is a serious matter regarding justice and I should like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, as I presume he will, I will express the hope that the House will go along with this. We got into a mess earlier over the vote because of the separation of these issues, which could have been linked. We now have an opportunity to take up the Minister's offer of discussion. I think that we should, and I hope that neither she nor we will dig in out of purism, and that the Clerks will have their ears open.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Of course, technically we voted on Amendment 53A. I did not move the other amendments.

Roads: Drink-drive Limit

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. We are making good progress with drink-driving, but drug-driving is increasing. The noble Lord referred to roadside testing. It is important to have a Home Office-approved roadside testing device in order to be able to move on to the invasive procedure of taking a blood sample without the need for a doctor.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I first declare an interest as a member of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. My mother was killed by a drunk driver—our neighbour at that stage—who was not a long-standing overdrinker in the way that the noble Earl said but a normal drinker. When the Minister looks at the North report, I ask him to remember that we could reduce drink-driving deaths by about 150 a year from its present level of perhaps 400 a year. That would save 150 families what I and my family went through. Will he resist the blandishments that he will undoubtedly receive from the drinks industry and take this important step forward?