| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: Can the Minister say what arrangements the Secretary of State intends to make for ensuring that the members of visiting committees are adequately representative of the ethnic minorities who will be housed in the accommodation centres?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. It is important for such a consideration to be put on the record. We do not have preconceptions as to who might be a member of an advisory group. We believe that there will be a wide range of interested persons. We expect representations from Church and charitable organisations to come forward with a particular interest. We want to encourage people with compassion, understanding, an open-minded approach, and, obviously, a sense of justice and fair play.
Given the nature of the work involved, we also envisage making security and status checks on all candidates—and, also, to the extent permissible, on their spouse or partner. We envisage applicants completing a form in which they will need to specify any conviction. So we want people of good standing in the community.
The question was raised as to whether people from the local population might want to join advisory groups. We would want to encourage that as it may well be in the best interests of the development of the groups. I hope that I have covered the range of questions on this matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether the monitors would have a role in resolving contractual disputes. We do not see a role for the monitor in those situations. Our view is that the contract will be between the Secretary of State and the provider of services. But the monitor will bring
concerns that have been expressed about the operation of contracts and arrangements to the Secretary of State, and they may well be reflected in any annual report that is made.7.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry to stop the noble Lord when he is getting on so well, but I am thinking about what would happen in the case of a centre in Scotland. Is it anticipated that the Secretary of State referred to in Amendment No. 132 will be the Secretary of State for Scotland, appointing a monitor for the Scottish centres; or will the Home Secretary monitor all the centres through appointments made by him? I do not know whether the point has been considered. It is clearly important. This is not a simple devolution issue; it is a reserved matter and the centres are being placed in Scotland as part of a system. It will certainly need to be thought about if that has not happened already.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should perhaps have anticipated that the noble Baroness would raise the Scottish question. My understanding is that it is a reserved matter, so I believe that it will fall to the Secretary of State. However, if I am wrong, I shall endeavour to correct that statement.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Which Secretary of State?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Home Secretary.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the question of whether the monitor's function was close to that of the prisons ombudsman. The monitor will be required to monitor the operation of accommodation centres. It is not our intention that the monitor should deal with complaints. The advisory group will want to do that.
I was asked whether the monitors would have teeth. Yes, it is our intention that they will have teeth. I am sure that Parliament will want to hold us properly to account on that. It is only right that that is carried through.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised. The debate has been most helpful. It will help us to focus on what will need to be the content of the regulations. We have listened carefully to what has been said in the debate and we shall reflect on all the important points raised. I very much welcome the support that we have received across the Dispatch Box from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I believe that we have come a long way in meeting many of the concerns expressed in another place and by Members of the Committee this evening.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think the Minister is slightly ahead of himself on this occasion. I have not quite withdrawn my amendment yet; he must give me a chance.
I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on this rather large group of amendments covering an important issue. I am
grateful to those noble Lords who expressed some sympathy with what is perhaps the slight superiority of my Amendment No. 101 because of the extra authority that it would give to what I would term the visiting committees and the Government refer to as the advisory group and the monitor.I was particularly struck by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that we must be careful not to let the accommodation centres be detention centres by another name. It is important that people appointed to the advisory groups reach out into the community and that the community takes part in the life of the accommodation centre so that there is integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made a point about discussions with outside groups which was referred to only briefly by the Minister. I shall have to examine the remarks carefully in Hansard. The point is that we are seeing the setting up of an organisation for just four trial places, but it will need to be flexible enough and have sufficient authority to be able to act properly in respect of all other areas.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was, as ever, right to raise the Scottish question. I shall want to examine the Minister's response carefully and take advice on the matter.
At this stage, it is right that I consult the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Council as to whether they think that the very full answer given by the Minister has addressed all their concerns, or whether there are any remaining matters that we may need to bring back. This is the first occasion that we have had the opportunity of hearing such a full explanation of how the Government intend the new advisory groups and the monitor to act.
Now I can please the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill should begin again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002
7.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations will help local authorities to improve air quality by reducing the number of illegally polluting vehicles on England's roads.
No new offences are created. What we propose are powers for local authorities to enforce what are already statutory offences. These powers have already been trialed successfully by seven local authorities. We are imposing no new burden on local authorities, as the powers will be optional—although we hope that many local authorities will be keen to adopt them.
The regulations provide two sets of powers. The first will enable local authorities with severe air quality problems—defined as air quality management areas—to carry out tests at the roadside of any car, bus or lorry to identify and penalise those who exceed prescribed emissions limits. It is a sad fact that many drivers pay little attention to their vehicle except when their MOT is due. The National Audit Office has estimated that up to 20 per cent of vehicles on Britain's roads are polluting illegally. We hope that knowing that they could receive a £60 penalty for failing a roadside test will encourage more drivers to take proper care of their vehicles.
The second set of powers will enable all local authorities in England to take action against drivers who leave their vehicle engines running unnecessarily when parked. The few drivers who refuse requests to switch off their engines may face a £20 penalty. There are many examples, but I am thinking in particular of coaches in busy town centres and cars outside schools or railway stations. I think we all know how unpleasant this can be, as well as unhealthy.
No one should be in any doubt as to how to avoid these penalties, as local authorities will be publicising them quite widely.
There are 25 regulations, which I can read out in detail—but there are indications that that would not be welcome. So, in conclusion, I have no hesitation in commending the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of the regulations. I declare an interest, as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and am closely involved with many other trade associations.
I do not support the principle behind the regulations. I believe that they will not be effective and that they will be an unnecessary interference with motorists. I shall try to explain why.
The first problem is that, when vehicles are presented for an MOT test, they have to be specially prepared to make sure that the engine will not be damaged during the testing procedure. A particular weak point is the cambelt. Failure of this can cause serious damage to the engine. What precautions will be taken before the emissions test takes place, or is it entirely different from the test carried out at the MOT station? If so, will this test be effective?
The second problem is that the tests are unnecessary. Tests are already carried out during the MOT test. The Minister alluded to that. Is there a problem with the tests undertaken at the MOT station? These tests are carried out in a controlled environment. The testers have to be careful to make sure that the engine is at the right operating temperature. I have referred to maintenance problems. On average, vehicles cover only 12,000 miles per annum. They will not go out of tune in that distance. Of course, some vehicles, particularly those used for commercial travelling, cover very high mileages, but they are generally in fleets, they are generally new vehicles and they are generally well maintained.
A third problem that worries me is Regulation 12, which deals with the stopping of engines when vehicles are stationary. It refers to "a stationary idling offence". What offence is that? There is no cross-reference in the regulations. I was not aware that it was a specific offence. It is obviously undesirable to leave an engine idling for long periods. I often switch off my engine for that reason. However, it could be counter-productive to stop an engine, because certain types of engine can emit large amounts of pollution on start-up. Do Euro emissions standards cover emissions on start-up of an engine?
Surely the issue is a matter of judgment for the driver. Education of the driver will be far more useful. That links in with my other concerns about improving general driving standards. To switch off an engine is just good driving.
We are looking at penalising drivers for the technicality of not stopping an engine, but on the other hand inconsiderate and discourteous drivers will get away scot-free.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page