Touring Hauliers: Arts Organisations

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their announcement on 6 May regarding “dual registration” for specialist touring hauliers, what assessment they have made of the impact this will have on artists and organisations which tour in their own vehicles and operate under “own account”; and whether they have considered support for smaller hauliers operating which do not have the resources to operate dual registration.

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

My Lords, specialist touring hauliers operating under “own account” can utilise the dual-registration measure if they have a standard international operator licence, which they must apply for, and a base in Great Britain and another country. Operators will need to make their own decisions on whether they choose to do so based on business need and resources available to them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this is all very much half a loaf. If a comprehensive solution is not found, the damage to the UK music industry and the events support industry will be massive. The Prime Minister has assured us that the Government are working “flat out” on the touring issue. Can the Minister assure the House that her department is urgently working on finding a wider solution, such as an exemption from cabotage for all trucks engaged on cultural events?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Certainly, the department has worked incredibly hard on this and continues to do so. We had a public consultation back in February, and we are deeply engaged with the industry, particularly the specialist haulage industry, which is so important. We know that about one in five hauliers has already set up within the EU, and many more have plans to do so. We recognise that the dual-registration system will not benefit absolutely everybody. However, it is the case under the TCA that many hauliers will be able to make use of their two cross-trades within the bilateral EU-UK movements that they can make. So it does not mean that all touring is off the table. We believe that, at the moment, we have the best possible solution, in light of the current response from the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am not aware that there is a particular issue here for youth orchestras. Like any orchestra, if a youth orchestra does not have its own vehicles, it can of course contract with an appropriate haulier which is able to operate within the regime that is set up in the UK and in the EU. It will depend on the sort of tour that youth orchestras want to do and how many countries they will be visiting as to the rules and regulations and which licences will need to be held by the haulier with which they choose to contract.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, is the gist of what the Minister has said today that everything is satisfactory and nothing further needs to be done?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I completely reject that—that is not what I am saying at all. The Government absolutely recognise that the measures that we have put in place help the sector and mean that a large proportion of the UK industry can continue to operate, but we acknowledge that not all specialist operators will be in a position to establish a base overseas. As I have said before, our door remains open; we would wish to discuss this with the EU but so far, unfortunately, it has not wanted to do so.

Hauliers

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in pointing out that the issues on cabotage are part of a huge cloud now hanging over the creative sector, including the requirement for work permits or visa exemptions in many EU countries, CITES certificates for musical instruments, ATA carnets for all instruments and equipment, and proof of origin requirements for merchandise. Cabotage provisions in the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement will mean that performers’ European tours will no longer be viable, because the agreement specifies that hauliers will be able to make only two journeys within a trip to the EU. Having to return to the UK between unloading sites in the EU will have a significant negative impact on the UK’s cultural exports and associated jobs.

A successful UK transport industry dedicated to our creative industries is at risk of relocation to the EU, endangering British jobs and jeopardising the attractiveness of the UK as a culture hub, as support industries will follow the companies that relocate to the EU. What proposals do the Government have for a negotiated solution, such as they have heard about today, that will meet their needs?

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard)
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to put on record the considerable disappointment on these Benches that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will not be making an Oral Statement on the Government’s initial response to the White Paper on online harms. I seek an assurance from the Government Chief Whip, or indeed the Government Deputy Chief Whip, that government time will be made available for a full debate on the response to the White Paper.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has to say and I will discuss it with my noble friend the Chief Whip.

Motion

Health: Public Health Responsibility Deal

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress and impact of the Public Health Responsibility Deal.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, it is now more than two years since the then Secretary of State for Health, my right honourable friend Andrew Lansley, local government and the leaders of a number of industries came together in March 2011 to agree the public health responsibility deal. There is no doubt that as a country we face significant public health challenges. Working-age ill health is estimated to cost the UK economy more than £100 billion a year. England has among the highest levels of adult obesity in Europe. We have more than 8,000 what might be described as premature deaths every year from too much salt in our food. Alcohol misuse costs the NHS £3.5 billion a year. Physical inactivity costs it £1 billion a year and the costs to the wider economy from sickness absence have been estimated at around £5.5 billion.

The essence of the PHRD, as the Secretary of State said in his introduction, was to agree voluntary action to ensure we,

“have more progress, more quickly”

with less cost than legislation. There are those who are sceptical about this kind of action. A recent paper in the Lancet by Professor Rob Moodie of the University of Melbourne concluded that the only way to achieve the UN’s goal of halving the mortality rate for diseases caused by tobacco, alcohol and poor diet was through greater regulation. Likewise, Which? is sceptical. Its executive director, Richard Lloyd, last year speaking about the responsibility deal, said:

“We have the worst obesity rates in Europe and diet-related diseases, like heart disease and stroke, are blighting the public’s health. Our audit of progress made under the Government’s Responsibility Deal has shown the current approach is overly reliant on vague voluntary promises by the food industry. This has so far failed to bring about change on anything like the scale needed”.

The BMA in its briefing for this debate said it believes that relying largely on voluntary agreements with the food and drinks industry is inadequate. It, of course, refused to sign up to the responsibility deal.

The question at the core of this is how far is nudging effective? The Health Select Committee in its report last year on the Government’s alcohol strategy said that,

“we do not oppose the exploration of innovative techniques such as ‘nudging’, where it can be shown, following proper evaluation, to be an effective way of delivering policy objectives. The Committee were, however, unconvinced that the new Responsibility Deal will be effective in resolving issues such as obesity and alcohol abuse and expect the Department of Health to set out clearly how progress will be monitored and tougher regulation applied if necessary”.

Clearly, issues of physical activity, alcohol misuse and obesity have to be tackled in a variety of ways but I know I am not alone in preferring to see voluntary action initially rather than increased regulation unless the former is shown to have failed. It is far too purist a line to say that industry should not be involved in public health initiatives. In the responsibility deal, different sectors made particular pledges for action, regarding food and diet, alcohol, physical activity and health at work. The essence of the deal was acceptance by signatories of the role they play in improving people’s health—encouraging them to adopt a healthier diet, fostering a culture of responsible drinking, encouraging and assisting them to become more physically active and actively supporting their workforce to lead healthier lives. The organisations involved made a series of collective pledges by sector, individual pledges by organisation, and what were called supporting pledges, regarding collaboration, monitoring and evaluation, information and development of further pledges.

Today, I regard all aspects of the deal as important but, given the time available, I want to focus on two limbs of the deal, relating to food and alcohol. The initial collective pledges by the food industry involved, for example, salt reduction, front-of-pack nutrition labelling, artificial trans fats removal and calorie reduction. One of the recent fruits of the responsibility deal has been the new voluntary UK traffic light scheme for front-of-pack nutrition labelling, which was launched on 19 June this year. This will introduce more consistent nutrition labelling across the UK by providing, on the front of food and drink products, clear information on energy and those nutrients of public health concern that the majority of us should be aiming to limit in our diets. Then of course there are the steps towards calorie reduction by the food and soft drink manufacturers, and the significant actual and planned reduction of salt in food, in supermarket products and catering.

For the alcohol industry, including manufacturers and the on and off-trades, the pledges involved: fostering a culture of responsible drinking; a reduction in alcohol units to remove 1 billion units from the market; a commitment to labels with clear unit content; awareness of alcohol units in the on and off-trades; tackling alcohol sales to those who are underage; action on advertising and marketing alcohol; community action to tackle alcohol harm, and support for Drinkaware. This partly depends on having clear, common understanding of the facts but these are not always straightforward. There are many conflicting statistics and it is not always easy to draw conclusions.

There are many different perspectives on current trends. It appears that national alcohol consumption trends are going in the right direction. Nationally, per capita consumption has fallen from 11.5 to 10 litres of alcohol per person per year, and is now below the European national average. More people drink within the guidelines. There is less drinking at harmful levels and binge drinking is down. There is less alcohol-related violent crime, and there has been a very significant drop in drink-driving fatalities over the past 20 years. All these statements are derived from official figures. However, hospital admissions are up, whether this is taken as those where alcohol is the primary diagnosis or those which are simply alcohol-related.

There are anomalies in respect of particular age groups and localities, even where the national picture shows improvement. Areas such as the north-west and the north-east have a disproportionate amount of binge drinking and hospital admissions, due to alcohol-related causes. Supporting Drinkaware, an independent organisation, is one of the key pledges given by the drinks industry. Drinkaware works with young adults to moderate drinking through the “Why let good times go bad?” campaign. It also helps parents tackle alcohol issues with their children. It has recently published an audit of effectiveness which demonstrates the progress it is making, and that its work is being increasingly recognised. Drinkaware says that binge drinking remains a social norm in many areas. We are, it seems, fighting a huge cultural battle so pledges are fine but translation into local action is key. There is clearly a need to target appropriate schemes at particular areas. The drinks industry tells me that it is working with local partners including local authorities, police and the third sector to do this.

There is in fact an impressive array of voluntary schemes. During the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in July 2011, and in the debate initiated last year by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I talked of the virtues of local voluntary actions designed to combat alcohol abuse. These are through schemes such as Purple Flag, Best Bar None, Pubwatch, business improvement districts and community alcohol partnerships, with central government working with the industry—both the on and off-trades and the manufacturers—and the advantage of those schemes over those imposed in a compulsory way, such as the early-morning restriction orders and the late-night levy. There is of course Challenge 21 and Challenge 25, a strategy that encourages anyone buying alcohol who looks under 25 to carry acceptable ID. There is also PASS, the nationally recognised Proof of Age Standards Scheme. It would be very interesting to know what evaluation has been done for these individual schemes, since each clearly has different objectives and outcomes. I am pleased that licensing authorities will have discretion to offer a discount from the late-night levy up to a maximum of 30% for premises that are part of—or members of—best practice schemes, subject to specific criteria.

A recent positive development is the revised version of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice on the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks. The new version of the code now specifically states that there should be no linkage to sexual activity, no images of under 25s, and easier promotion of lower strength products. Furthermore, progress on alcohol unit reduction is well under way towards the goal of 1 billion fewer units consumed. The strength of well known brands has been reduced, and new lower-alcohol alternatives have been introduced.

Of course, at the back of all our minds is the question as to the future of minimum unit pricing, as originally proposed by the Government. I am an agnostic, currently, but the proponents of minimum unit pricing refer to the Canadian experience. What can my noble friend say on that subject?

So what is the future for PHRD? The scoping review undertaken on behalf of the Department of Health by the Policy Innovation Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine concludes that, if properly implemented and monitored,

“voluntary agreements can be an effective policy approach, though there is little evidence on whether they are more effective than compulsory approaches”.

The key questions that the PIRU is being asked to consider are: does the responsibility deal as a mechanism work? Can voluntary pledges achieve the necessary change? Are the pledges themselves amenable to evaluation? In fact, can any cause and effect ever be evaluated? Yet the unit itself believes that the most useful questions at this stage of the development of the responsibility deal are about what it is; its objectives; how it is expected to work; how it can be assessed; and how will we know whether it works—in particular, what further steps are needed. I wonder what we can really expect from the PIRU study at the end of the day.

No doubt there is a considerable task ahead for my noble friend the Minister in replying today, but even more questions remain. Under new leadership, is the department still committed to this approach, and is the deal essentially worth it for all concerned? I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.

Localism Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

195: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“CHAPTER 8Powers in relation to casino premises licenceVariation of licences: abolition of permitted areas
(1) A relevant local authority may consider and, if thought fit, grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate and may do so regardless of whether or not—
(a) the premises to which the application relates are situated in the area of the relevant local authority which issued the licence; and(b) the area of the relevant local authority in which those premises are situated was a permitted area when the converted casino premises licence was originally issued.(2) Subsection (1) shall not require a relevant local authority to consider any application to vary a converted casino premises licence if that local authority has passed a resolution under section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005 (resolution not to issue casino licences) and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.
(3) In Schedule 4 to the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006 (transitional provisions), for sub-paragraph (13) of paragraph 65 (application of the Gambling Act 2005 to casino premises licences granted on a conversion application) substitute—
“(13) An application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate shall be made—
(a) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of the licensing authority which issued the licence, to that licencing authority; or (b) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of another licensing authority, to that other licensing authority, and section 213(f) (definition of licensing authority) shall apply to such an application as if the licensing authority considering such an application under paragraph (b) was the authority which issued that licence.(14) Nothing in paragraph (13)(b) shall require a licensing authority to consider or grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate if—
(a) the premises are wholly or partly situated in the area of a licensing authority which did not issue the licence; and(b) the licensing authority has resolved under section 166 not to issue casino premises licences and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.”.(4) In this section—
“converted casino premises licence” has the same meaning as in the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006;
“permitted area” means the area of a local authority which was a permitted area for the purposes of the Gaming Act 1968;
“relevant local authority” means a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland which is a licensing authority under the Gambling Act 2005.”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 249A. This proposed new clause originates from a well researched report by Ernst & Young in July 2010, commissioned by the National Casino Industry Forum. It was designed to show the impact of a number of regulatory reforms, which would improve the economics of the gaming industry, benefit the public, and the public purse.

The current situation is totally illogical and, in the long run, unsustainable. There are currently 53 permitted areas where casinos regulated under the Gaming Act 1968 are allowed. The system of permitted areas was introduced principally to reduce the number of casinos to a manageable number. The areas were chosen on a subjective basis. The 1971 regulations included a formula under which any county borough outside Greater London with a population of 125,000 people became a permitted area.

When county boroughs were abolished in 1974, the formula was altered so as to bring in those former county boroughs which had a population of 125,000 or more at any time between 1 December 1970 and 1 October 1973. The list has remained frozen ever since. That is almost 40 years ago. In that time, demographics and economic conditions in these areas have changed enormously and 187 licences have been issued under the Gaming Act 1968. I should emphasise that this number is finite, which means that no more can be granted, but the number can be reduced. Of the 187 licences currently in force, 149 are trading; the balance have either closed down as commercially not viable or have not been opened, many for the same reason. Compare that to the 8,800 betting shops in existence, which are not similarly constrained.

Currently, a casino can relocate only within the permitted area in which it is located; so it cannot locate to another permitted area or to a town that is not in a permitted area. Hence, if the permitted area is overcrowded and the casino is commercially unviable it has no option but to close. Yet some 60 local authorities applied for a 2005 licence and were disappointed. This has led to a number of consequences. There are too many casinos within existing permitted areas; there has been a closing down of casinos with resultant loss of jobs; and the Exchequer is losing money from gaming tax lost as a consequence.

What is the solution? We need to be able to permit a casino to move to anywhere in the UK where the local authority is prepared to have one of the existing casino licences. Local authorities would consider whether they wish to have a licensing policy that states they can have a casino within their area. Many local authorities do, as can be seen from the number who applied to have a 2005 Act casino in their area, but were unsuccessful, as I stated earlier.

A casino operator with a non-operating licence—for example, where it has closed down because there were too many casinos in the current permitted area—could apply to transfer the licence to a local authority that wishes to have a casino. No local authority can be forced to have a casino. Under Section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005, it can resolve on a licensing policy stating that no casino licence will be granted. A local authority which has a no-casino policy currently in place will be excluded, unless it decides to change its licensing policy.

Even if a local authority passes a policy stating that a casino can be located in its area, the public has to be consulted. Before a new casino can open there will still need to be separate planning and premises licence applications where the public and any other interested party will be able to make representations. Only if these two things happen will the casino be able to move to a new location.

What are the consequences? The impact of this amendment, if accepted, will be to create new leisure facilities in a locality, new capital expenditure, new jobs—the NCIF calculates that 2,400 to 3,000 new jobs could be created in consequence—and increased revenue for the Exchequer. The Ernst & Young analysis confirms that up to £12 million in additional gaming duty would be levied if just 20 casinos relocated.

This proposal does not increase problem gambling as there is no increase in the overall permitted number of casino licences. Therefore, this is a genuine win-win solution. By way of explanation, Amendment 249A will extend the benefit of these provisions to Scotland. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is almost refreshing to move from the constant headlines about the casino economy, which the world has enjoyed for the past few years, to something as substantive and reasonable as the noble Lord has brought to the House today in terms of the limited number of premises to which this amendment would apply. The key to the argument of the noble Lord is that this should be a matter for local decision within the overall context of that limited number. It seems to be entirely consistent with the approach of localism—it should be a matter for local determination—with the benefits that the noble Lord has referred to being realised in a number of places that wish to see that kind of development augmenting their current offer to residents and visitors. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on the amendment and facilitate its passage.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I am aware that this amendment would make changes that some elements of the British casino industry have been seeking for some time. I can sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but this is not the right time to discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. It is not an uncontroversial proposal and it would be wrong to assume that there is unanimous support for it either inside or outside the industry.

Seventeen new licenses were provided for by the Gaming Act 2005 aimed at contributing to economic development and regeneration in carefully selected locations. We do not know what sort of impact this proposal could have on the eight competitions to award the new licenses which are currently under way. All of those have yet to launch their processes. It would not be right to bring forward measures at this stage which could undermine these competitions and adversely affect the benefits that these new casinos could bring to local communities.

Nor should we assume that the casino industry in Britain is united behind this proposal. I understand that the industry is split over the idea. The National Casino Industry Forum supports it, but the Casino Operators Association is thoroughly opposed. That is not to say that the Government reject outright the principle behind the amendment, but there is some way to go before we could consider offering our support and we would need to look at some issues. For example, the amendment as proposed does not require the 40 or 50 currently dormant casino licences to be handed back as a quid pro quo. That might be an important gesture to ensure that any new flexibility did not lead to a substantial increase in the number of casinos.

The relevant Minister, the Minister for Tourism, who is responsible for gambling policy has met with representatives of the industry a number of times and they are fully aware of his views. I am sure that he would be prepared to consider this matter in the future in the terms that I have just outlined. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If those are reassurances, I wonder what a negative response would be. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his very positive response and I am grateful for his support. This is an anomaly and it should be covered by localism, the very word in the title of the Bill. On the other hand, I understand that the industry is not completely united on this. There is some wisdom in what the Minister has to say about waiting to see the outcome of the second round of the 2005 licences.

I take some comfort from the Minister’s comments that this will be kept under review. I have an awful feeling that it is never the right time and that it is easy to say that it is not the right time now. The NCIF, myself and others will be entering the lists again just as soon as the 2005 round is over and the impact of those new casinos is known because I think the good sense of this proposal is self-evident. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I should like briefly to add to the comments made by both my noble friends, with whom I am in total agreement. Indeed, I very much welcome today’s debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the Council of the School of Pharmacy, University of London.

It is already very clear through this debate that the process and outcome of the consultation, impact assessment and change in the rules have been grossly unsatisfactory. Although it was rather strange, I suppose that the qualified welcome given by some institutions to the March statement by the Home Secretary and the attendant statement of intent was explained by the fact that many in higher education were expecting worse. However, that does not mean that any of them are by any manner of means in agreement with the current state of play.

I want to talk, in particular, about the closure of the post-study work route visa, on which I have asked quite a number of questions over the past two years. The Government’s response to the Home Affairs Select Committee and correspondence to me from the immigration ministry are interesting in that they show that the Minister and the Home Office seem to have greatly underestimated the importance of the post-study work aspect of coming to a United Kingdom university.

As vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary China Group, I have had a great deal of contact over the years with Chinese students in particular. I believe that some 80,000 to 100,000 students from China are here at any one time. The opportunity to undertake what is essentially an internship with a UK business after graduating, to prepare for a career back in China, has played a very important part in the decision by Chinese students to come here. In the response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report, the Minister said:

“We want to ensure students come for a limited period and to study not to work”.

In his letter to me of 27 July, the Minister put it rather differently:

“Tier 4 should be about coming to the UK to gain a high-quality education and not about finding a route to work in the UK through undertaking a course”.

However, that completely misunderstands the reason for the post-study work route visa. It is a route to having brief work experience here in the UK and thereafter to working long-term back in the home country with the skills acquired.

The tier 2 route visa will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. If we were able to unpack the responses to the consultation, which we are not, I am sure that a better solution could easily be found—certainly looking at the evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee—to tighten up the PSWR mechanism under tier 4. That would be much more satisfactory. As it is, it will make our higher education institutions much less attractive to overseas students. As we know, and as has been mentioned by all speakers so far, the impact assessment for the new rules came out extremely late in a very unsatisfactory fashion. That, as we also know, was commented on by the Merits Committee on two occasions, and we now know that some £3.5 billion gross of income and economic activity could be at risk as a result. That potentially has a huge impact on our education sector and it puts that sector considerably at risk on the basis of little evidence of abuse of the post-study work route visa.

It is right to say, as the Merits Committee does, that it is not clear from the impact assessment or the Explanatory Memorandum to the June statement how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes. I think that that is an entirely uncontroversial statement in the light of what we have heard today. That is despite the statement in paragraph 8.1 of the statement of changes. As we know, the consultation was rushed through in only a month, which itself was grossly unsatisfactory and, sadly, these new rules have taken effect in those circumstances. It is vital that the new rules are kept under review and I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that that will happen after a very short period of operation. It would have been better if these rules had not gone through but, on the basis that they have, I very much hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that such a review will take place.

The experience of Australia is an extremely salutary lesson in these circumstances. When the Immigration Rules were changed, as the Home Affairs Select Committee reported, there was a slump in applications from overseas to Australian universities, from which they are still recovering.

Finally, the Home Affairs Select Committee report, which is an extremely good document, said that the committee members were not persuaded that students are migrants. The Minister, in his reply to the report, said that he disagreed, claiming that the definition was long-standing under UN measures. That does not make it right. It is high time that rationality prevailed and that students are not regarded as migrants unless they are here for the longer term after graduating.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the opportunity to debate this Motion. A large number of points have been raised. I am eager to deal with the issues to which they give rise but clearly I shall have to deal with most of them in writing, as noble Lords have been quite wide-ranging.

The Motion before us deals with changes to tier 4 of the immigration system covering international students. The issue at hand is how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy and the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes.

When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, started, he told us about the importance of overseas students. He is, of course, quite right and I absolutely agree with him, but only in respect of genuine students who have come here to study at our world-class academic institutions. That is why we are devoting our attention particularly to the private education sector, where there is much abuse, although we are doing well to reduce it. However, I am at one with the noble Lord regarding universities. He will know that they enjoy considerable advantages under our policies. For example, we have introduced flexibility into universities on the English language requirements, on the ability to work and on the ability to bring in dependants.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about loss of income from the UKBA. Although there will be a reduction in fees paid to the UKBA, the agency has made allowance for this in its business planning. I hope that he agrees that the UKBA exists to keep our borders secure and not just to turn over visa fees. He claimed the credit for the previous action to deal with bogus students but the previous Government only started that and left this Government with considerable work to do.

The noble Lord referred to the 35th report from your Lordships’ Merits Committee, which states that:

“The Committee regrets that it is not clear from the IA or the Explanatory Memorandum how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes”.

Your Lordships will recall that the House debated the first set of changes to the student route on 16 May. At that time, the impact assessment for the student changes had not been published. However, the impact assessment for the changes to the student route was published when we made the second set of changes on 13 June. I reiterate my previous reassurance that we are quite clear that it is right and proper to provide the Merits Committee with the information necessary for it to do its job.

However, the issue having been raised, it would be remiss of me not to put this again in the context of the previous practice in this area. While it is generally accepted as good practice, there is no legal obligation for the UKBA to consult on changes to the Immigration Rules. In March 2010, the previous Government made significant changes to tier 4—the student route—without a formal public consultation. Despite taking the views of key partners, they did not publish any formal explanation of the findings. Similarly, in March 2006, following consultation, the previous Government published their policy for a points-based system but did not publish the 517 consultations that they received.

I am satisfied that this Government have gone to great lengths to seek the views of the public and of the sector, and to take account of these views in developing our final policy. On 23 November 2010, the Home Secretary informed Parliament that she intended to hold a public consultation on reforming the student visa system. This process began on 7 December, when the Home Secretary announced our proposals and the consultation paper was published. The consultation ran until 31 January 2011—shorter than a standard 12 weeks but that was in order to announce decisions at a time that would allow the sector and students to plan for the following academic year.

Our consultation received over 30,000 responses—10 times as many as the consultation on economic routes—and officials spoke to representatives of over 200 institutions during the consultation period. On 22 March, the Home Secretary made a full statement in the other place setting out the detail of the Government’s decisions, and the public reaction and data that had informed those decisions. On 31 March, we published a detailed statement of intent describing the full policy package and lay changes to the Immigration Rules to implement the first changes resulting from the consultation, which came into effect on 21 April. On 13 June, we lay the second set of changes to the Immigration Rules and published the impact assessment.

It is true that, like the previous Government, we have not published every consultation response. As I mentioned, there were over 30,000 responses online and over 200 longer written responses. We published a summary of the online responses to all questions asked and answered in the consultation. We also indicated the level of support in relation to every response. We felt that this was helpful information for Parliament and interested parties to have. The government code of practice on consultations states that:

“Following a consultation exercise, the Government should provide a summary of who responded to the consultation exercise and a summary of the views expressed … Consideration should be given to publishing the individual responses received”,

but, in this instance, the volume of responses made that impracticable.

The level of response demonstrates a high level of public engagement with the policy development processes. The changes that we have made to our final policy show that we have genuinely listened to and taken account of the views expressed. For example, we initially proposed raising the minimum level of English to an upper immediate level and required secure English language tests for all students. This received a clear, negative response from institutions, who indicated that pre-university pathway courses provided a vital route for international students to access our world-class universities.

Visas: Points-based System

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

First, I commend the patience and determination of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on securing this debate on a subject about which I know he feels extremely strongly. I also congratulate him on his opening speech, which set out so clearly the case on the tier 5 visas.

The points-based visa system was introduced in November 2008 by the previous Government to ensure that we were bringing in the right skills from abroad to meet the needs of UK business in the permanent workforce. I have no quarrel with that aspiration, but in a number of areas, the system has proved over-bureaucratic, self-defeating and damaging to Britain's reputation. Nowhere has that proved more the case than with the provisions relating to non-EU artists who wish to perform or exhibit in the UK.

After the introduction of the PBS in November 2008, it became immediately apparent that tier 5, for visiting performers and artists, was having an adverse effect on cultural exchange—in particular, international artists and academics who visit the UK for a variety of cultural and academic activities. Rather than being welcomed, visiting artists are being treated with suspicion.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, set out the current basis of the system, with requirements for savings, sponsors and so on. I first became aware of the issue when the Manifesto group, in 2009, published Cancelled by Order of the Home Office, which set out an appalling catalogue of the damage done to Britain's reputation as a centre for international arts as a result of the new system. Other organisations, such as English PEN and the National Campaign for the Arts, which the noble Earl referred to, also are heavily engaged in trying to improve the system.

The new system affects international artists and academics who visit the UK for a variety of cultural and academic activities. The regulations have led to a stream of cancelled talks and art events by artists and academics from anywhere outside Europe, as the noble Earl described. He mentioned the petition presented last year to No. 10. Subsequently those petitioners, in a letter to the Times, said of the points-based system:

“It is ruining Britain's reputation as a cultural hub and also turning cultural institutions and universities, against their will, into surveillance arms of a UK Border Agency, itself largely unaccountable … The vibrancy of British cultural life rests on the openness and independence of its institutions, and on maintaining rich and extensive collaboration with thinkers, artists, and the students who will make the future”.

I totally agree with that sentiment.

As a result of the new visa arrangements, more than 20 major events have been cancelled or badly affected. In December 2009, I raised the matter in this House and received the reply that I was not giving the then Government credit for what they were doing to mitigate the situation.

To his credit, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, in his cultural strategy document entitled Cultural Metropolis, launched in November 2010, also called for an overhaul, believing that the new system is onerous and costly and damaging London’s reputation as a world centre for culture. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has given us some of the early results from the survey carried out by the Mayor of London into the problems caused by the tier 5 visa system—results which are pretty damning in themselves. Despite the campaign, and even under this Government, the catalogue of problems for visiting artists and academics has continued to grow, and the regulations have continued to lead to a stream of cancelled talks and art events by artists and academics from anywhere outside Europe.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, mentioned the case of Kristin Ostling, the cellist with the US Carpe Diem String Quartet who at the end of last year was held for eight hours at Heathrow. What he did not say was that she was caught by UKBA because she had a cello. The members of the quartet seem to have been allowed into the conference because their violins were more discreet. A Brazilian theatre company, Teatro da Curva, which was intending to perform at the Camden Fringe, was deported. Last October, five writers heading for the Southbank Centre’s Poetry International Festival were refused entry to the UK. One of them apparently did not have enough money in her bank account. I could mention a similar catalogue of woes in respect of visiting academics. I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, had to say on that subject. The Manifesto Club set these out in Fortress Academy, which it published last year.

In the face of these real instances of bureaucratic ill treatment and ignorance I have been pressing, with others, for a review of the PBS as it applies to the arts and academia. I was extremely interested in the noble Lord’s optimism in that respect. However, on 22 July, in response to a Question in this House, I was assured by the relevant Minister, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, that although there were no plans for a full review, a broader survey across all categories of tier 5 had been undertaken and will be published shortly. He asserted that the arts and entertainment task force was closely involved to ensure that the detail of the system reflects the creative sector’s needs while being robust and fair. Where are the results of the survey? How many times has the task force met to discuss the visa issue? What are its conclusions?

There has been some progress. Of course I welcome the inclusion of certain categories of artist in the UK shortage occupation list. There are also ways of mitigating problems associated with the current system which could be, and I hope will be, adopted. There could be better training for immigration officers so that, for instance, they understand what is meant by the expiry dates on certificates of sponsorship and correctly stamp artists’ passports with the correct permit to work. We could introduce minimum service standards, with a maximum of three months for renewing certificates of sponsorship. We could improve the levels of understanding of the officers who conduct the compliance visits. There could be better information and forms for applicants, and simplification of the certificate of sponsorship scheme. There should be an exemption from the immigration cap limit for artists who use the shortage occupation route under tier 2. There also needs to be improved biometric facilities so that applicants do not have to travel to third countries to get a visa.

There are further fundamental issues to be addressed. We need a comprehensive review. It is completely inappropriate that visiting artists and academics are dealt with in the same way as long-term migrants. These people have no impact at all on net migration into the UK. The exchange of artists is the lifeblood of the creative arts and industries, and of the education sector. We should do everything we can to facilitate that. This means that visa routes outside the points-based system must be developed. The entertainer route should be expanded; it is currently too narrow. There are some high-profile festivals, such as Edinburgh, Glastonbury and WOMAD, which have been marked out for special treatment. The approved list should be expanded to cover more and smaller festivals. I welcome the current proposal to create a tier 1 exceptional talent route for the arts, sciences and the humanities to cover people at the top of their profession, but will that be capped? Perhaps the Minister will clarify what this will mean.

Schengen visas for performers and artists are much more readily obtainable. So what should happen? Will all future gigs be held in Paris or Berlin while all our interchange is over Skype? Believe me, I am not joking. I hope that the coalition Government will recognise that this is a major issue and agree to undertake a full review so that we can ensure that the points-based system no longer damages UK arts and cultural exchange.

In the final minute, I want to deal very briefly with the specific issue of postgraduate work visas for overseas students under tier 1. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in the course of answering questions for the Government on student visas recently, gave an assurance that the Government are determined to protect our overseas students. But speeches by the Minister of State run somewhat contrary to that. The almost universal response to the proposal from businesses, universities, research charities and student bodies to eliminate post-study work visas has been negative, and for good reason. Recent experience in Australia has shown that changes in the student visa rules have led to drastic declines in student applications to Australian universities. There could be a sensible compromise so that these visas are obtainable by those with a higher degree in the form of a master’s. I hope very much that the Government will consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for asking his QSD. However, I would have found a three-hour debate much better for me, as it would have given me longer to answer your Lordships’ questions.

Let me begin by making it clear that this Government recognise and value highly the contribution made to our society, culture and economy by non-EU artists, performers and academics. I will set my response in the context of the Government’s overarching approach, which, quite simply, is that we will restore public confidence in the immigration system. We have said that we will reduce the number of non-EU migrants to ensure that net migration drops from the unsustainably high levels consistently seen in the past 10 years. Britain will benefit from migration, provided that it is controlled and in the country’s best interests. We are not seeking zero or negative net migration. The aim is to reduce net migration to the levels of the 1990s—the tens of thousands each year mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, not hundreds of thousands. So we are taking action to tighten all entry routes—work, students and family—and break the link between temporary routes and permanent settlement.

This debate focuses on the points-based system under which foreign nationals come here to work, study or train. There are distinct tiers to the PBS, designed for different skill levels and entry purposes. Tier 1 is for exceptionally talented individuals. Tier 2 is for skilled workers with a job offer, usually longer term. Artists, performers and academics would be able to qualify under both tiers, provided that the requirements and criteria are met.

We have started reforming these tiers. We are creating an exceptional talent route in tier 1. This will allow competent bodies to nominate the most exceptionally talented migrants and allow promising young talent to come to the UK for at least three years without the need of a job offer, although many will have one. This will be limited to 1,000 places, with half for the scientific community, led by the Royal Society. The main route for academic and research staff will be under tier 2, subject to the limit that we announced last November. If this is oversubscribed, applications will be ranked, with applications weighted for those coming to fill PhD-level research jobs. In addition, we are raising the minimum skills level, which will reduce numbers at the lower end, creating more room for the most economically valuable. Through these changes we shall attract the brightest and best, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton. It is not about closing our doors; it is about a more selective approach in the interests of Britain.

Then there is tier 5, which provides for temporary workers. This tier has a category specifically for artists and performers coming here for shorter periods of up to a year: the creative and sporting category. Most foreign creative artists and performers are likely to be entering through tier 5 if their purpose here is short-term, paid work. For academic activities, the tier 5 government-authorised exchange category provides for a rich variety of schemes involving academic exchange. These include the Chevening programme for scholars and researchers; the Commonwealth exchange programme for teachers; the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience scheme, enabling foreign science, engineering and applied arts graduates to gain experience through work placements; and the UK-India education and research initiative. There are several other such schemes that support and nourish academic endeavour.

Some believe that the PBS prevents the entry of legitimate overseas artists or academics. We do not accept that view, nor are we aware of evidence to suggest that it is well founded. The creative and academic sectors have been closely engaged through system development and now via the arts and entertainment task force and the joint education task force. Significant changes have been made to the advantage of these sectors. Moreover, the entry possibilities are not limited to the points-based system. The entertainer visitor route mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones allows entertainers to come—

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are somewhat flabbergasted by his statement that there is no evidence, as he has heard evidence from all round the Chamber today. Has the task force’s report been published?

[Earl Attlee]

I should rephrase that and say that I am advised that that is the case. The noble Lord may find the remarks that I shall make later more to his liking.

I was talking about the entertainer visitor route, which allows entertainers to come here for up to six months without doing so under the PBS. This route is principally used to facilitate those performing at cultural festivals. An academic visitor route enables foreign academics to conduct personal research or participate in formal academic exchange. Exceptionally, in comparison to all other visitor routes, such academics may come for 12 months.

An important indicator that the system does not obstruct is the simple fact that significant numbers of visas are applied for and issued every month to those coming here under these routes. For example, in 2009 an average of around 500 visas a month were issued to creative and sporting applicants and in 2010 that increased by 30 per cent to an average of 650 a month.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and other noble Lords referred to several individual cases, on which I am not in a position to comment. Noble Lords should write to me to enable the cases to be reviewed by Ministers as part of the machinery of government, which I am sure all noble Lords understand. However, I do not object to noble Lords quoting cases to illustrate the problem as they perceive it.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his good Front-Bench contribution, asked what would happen if the cap were breached after nine months. It will not be, as our limit will be split on a monthly basis and we will have about 1,500 places per month. It will not run out early. Many noble Lords said that the cap was arbitrary. However, we were advised by the independent Migration Advisory Committee, which is the right body to advise on this. The MAC is an independent committee comprising some of the UK’s top labour market economists. It advises the Government on economic migration matters, including the level of the Government’s limit on tiers 1 and 2, shortage occupations—jobs for which there is an endemic national shortage—and other matters put forward by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, suggested that sponsors are unhappy with reporting on their migrants and having a surveillance role, as I think he put it. The points-based system is based on the principle that those who benefit from migration to the UK should take some responsibility for ensuring that the system works properly and is not abused. We do not believe that this is unreasonable. We do not think that it is unreasonable for highly trusted sponsors and universities to have to report that a foreign student has failed to enrol, has dropped out or is otherwise on an unauthorised absence. After all, we know that the student route has been severely abused. The noble Earl also suggested that the UKBA should develop an entertainer and festival route.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but is he aware that the level of abuse in the university sector is 2 per cent?

[Earl Attlee]

Absolutely, that is why we have the highly trusted sponsor system, which most universities will be signed up to. The real abuse occurs in the fake language schools and accountancy schools.

I was talking about the festival visa routes. Specific proposals can always be considered, but the present visa is intentionally narrow and is not intended to provide an alternative route for entertainers who are coming here to do paid work. The noble Earl asked about modifying the certificate of sponsorship scheme to help smaller organisations to invite artists to the UK. It is not accepted that the system of PBS sponsorship represents a bureaucracy that is particularly acute for small organisations. The online process for a sponsor licence should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that there ought to be an urgent review of the system. I suggest that she considers the praise that the Home Office received when our tier 2 policy was announced. The CBI and British Chambers of Commerce praised the Government for listening. The Campaign for Science and Engineering, a good adviser to the Home Office, expressed its delight.

The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, suggested that many in the social sciences, philosophy and so on do not earn £40,000. I fear that there might be a misunderstanding. The £40,000 requirement will apply to intracompany transfers for periods of more than 12 months. A scientist or philosopher will enter generally through tier 2. Here they must be paid at least £20,000 per annum, and if they are not earning £20,000 per annum it is not clear to me how they will support themselves.

I am running out of time. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, described how some customers must travel long distances to submit their visa applications. The UKBA keeps this matter under constant review and is looking at ways to provide a facility to make it easier in some areas for customers to provide their biometric details.

The noble Lord asked about a survey of PBS applicants. The results of the survey he mentioned were published and I will write to him with the details. In brief, the majority of applicants found the applications easy to complete and that the decisions were received in a timely manner.

The noble Lord suggested that the points-based system is designed to manage long-term migration and that applying the same system to short-term cultural visits was inappropriate. The assertion that the points-based system is designed to manage only long-term migration is not correct. While economic migration was the focus, the clear intention when the system was introduced was that it should cover all routes by which foreign nationals enter the UK to work, train or study.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, suggested that additional pressure was put on tier 2 when we closed tier 1 general. I disagree. Tier 2 will become a graduate occupation route from 6 April. Tightening the route in this way will release pressure.

My noble friend Lord Bridgeman asked whether the position of nurses had changed as a result of the Migration Advisory Committee's announcement of 3 March. There is no change. The Government have neither accepted nor rejected the MAC’s shortage occupation list. He mentioned the cost of registration with the NMC, of the ONP course and of the international English language test, and suggested that the overall cost would be about £2,000. The UK Border Agency has no control over the cost of registering with the NMC, or over the ONP cost. My noble friend spoke about the cost of the English language test in relation to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. This is not an issue because these countries are English-speaking and we do not expect English nationals to pass this exam.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made a very strong contribution on the university sector. In particular, she suggested that our system of immigration is making it less attractive to study here. The Government have been clear that high-quality students will continue to be welcome in the UK. I recognise the particular issues around foundation courses. These were considered in detail when we consulted on student policy, and we will announce that policy in due course.

I have completely run out of time. I have left many points unanswered. I will of course write to all noble Lords who have taken part. I will also draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House. However, the Government will regain control of our immigration system.

Visas

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to make a decision on the criteria for granting tier 1 post-study work visas, following the recent consultation paper.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, a consultation on the student immigration system closed on 31 January. The consultation sought the views of respondents concerning the future of the tier 1 post-study work route and the effect of the proposals. The outcome of the consultation will be announced shortly.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on China and chair of the council of the School of Pharmacy, University of London. Only yesterday, the Minister said that the Government were determined to protect overseas students, so why are business, universities, research charities and student bodies all lined up against the current government proposals drastically to reduce those tier 1 post-study work visas? Not only will we let down our current overseas students, we will reduce the attractiveness of Britain as a study destination. Is that any way to foster good links with important countries such as China and India?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the situation with academic institutions. The answer is that they are not yet convinced of our good intentions. The UK’s education system is world-renowned. We remain the second most popular destination of choice, second only to the United States; and we intend to maintain that position. Post-study work is an important component of that.

Aviation: Hand-luggage Restrictions

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of hand-luggage restrictions operated by airlines on professional musicians and on the United Kingdom’s music economy.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, there are no government restrictions on musical instruments and their accessories carried by passengers into the cabin of an aircraft. The Department for Transport advises passengers that it is best to contact the individual airline before booking, as they may need to make special arrangements such as buying an extra seat for large instruments. Charges and fees imposed for the carriage of instruments are commercial decisions for the individual airline concerned.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; I am sure that he has looked into this matter with great care. However, there have been terrible cases where valuable and cherished instruments were smashed up in the holds of aircraft as a result of musicians not being able to take them on board as hand luggage. It may not be possible in every case for the Department for Transport to enforce the clear set of guidelines which it issued in 2009, but can it not at least name and shame the airlines involved?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the first point that my noble friend made was about damage to instruments. The key point here is that the musical instrument is absolutely vital to a musician. Musicians and their instruments are as one and, if they lose their instrument or it is damaged, their ability to perform at the highest level is severely reduced. My department is well aware of the issue, but if airlines want to acquire a bad reputation for looking after musicians, they do so at their own risk.

Visas

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have reviewed the process of issuing visas for Iraqi nationals and the location where they are issued.

[Earl Attlee]

The UK Border Agency has reviewed the visa service for Iraqi nationals, in consultation with the FCO and UK Trade and Investment. From early 2011, it will be implementing a limited expansion of the categories of applicant who may apply in Iraq, to include UKTI-sponsored business visitors and students coming to the UK under the Iraqi Prime Minister’s scholarship initiative. For ongoing security, financial and logistical reasons, Amman will remain the main decision-making centre.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but I must confess that I am not even sure that it is half a loaf. I am pleased for the British businesses that are sponsored by UKTI, which was extremely helpful in the recent trade delegation to Iraq. However, will the Minister ask the Home Office further to review the situation because Amman is not at all convenient for the vast bulk of Iraqi business people who have to wait there for up to two weeks? Will the Home Office and UKBA assist UKTI in its future efforts rather than hinder it?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in principle my answer is yes to everything. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his persistence in this area. We would like to do more as it would benefit UK business but the noble Lord, who has looked into this matter, will also understand some of the difficulties involved.