| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend know whether the Olympic design in Stratford includes a car park with a second deck? When I met the people involved in that a couple of years ago, they said that they would have to flatten the site, which had been used by Tarmac and concreting batching plants, for a VIP car park through which Her Majesty the Queen would drive. I suggested that a second deck could halve the area required, but they looked at me
23 Apr 2007 : Column 500
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have not been briefed on the car parks for the Olympic Games, save that the facility referred to is for the disabled. My noble friend finds many opportunities to present excellent ideas and I can hope only that many people take them up with the same alacrity as do Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister mentioned ploughing up. Is he aware of the plight of the allotment owners who are being asked to give up their long-tended allotments and who are not certain that they will be replaced with allotments of equal quality, if any?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, allotment owners have important interests that are being looked into and they will receive compensation or other land on which to develop allotments. As the noble Baroness indicated, as far as possible all users of the site on which the Olympic Games are to take place should have facilities restored to them or replaced once the Games are completed. That may not be possible in every case, but it is the intention.
Autism: Blue Badge Scheme
3 pm
Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether new guidance for local authorities on the administration of the blue badge scheme will include provision to allow for the blue badge to be extended to people with autism.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the new draft guidance, which is out to consultation, provides advice on the existing eligibility criteria and therefore does not include advice on autism. The Department for Transport is due to conduct a strategic review of the blue badge scheme, which will report this September. The review will consider whether the scheme should be extended to other disability groups.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but the wheels at the Department for Transport are grinding extremely slow. The review carried out by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee reported in 2002. That means that five years have now elapsed, and the department is conducting a strategic review over the next few months. What consideration has already been given to the needs of autistic people in these circumstances? Why have the Government been so slow to consider additional forms of eligibility for the blue badge scheme?
23 Apr 2007 : Column 501
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work on behalf of the educational needs of people with autism, in particular his work for TreeHouse, and I acknowledge his expertise in this field. There have been delays in the implementation of that first review, in light of which it is the department’s view that a further strategic review should be conducted. Its work should be completed this September so that we can more fully reflect on the needs of those who suffer from autism. We have been consulting charities that relate to autism as a disability. We have also recently received a final research project report on the needs of people with autism, which it is hoped we can feed into the strategic review so that a final policy on the matter can be determined by the beginning of next year.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend referred to a review of the operation of the blue badge scheme. When that takes place, can it also encompass the differences between one local authority and another, even those in central London? They are confusing, to say the least, because there is not proper signage about the arrangements in each local authority, so if a disabled person in a car moves out of his or her own local authority, he or she can get into difficulties through not knowing what the regulations are.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept that those difficulties can arise and it is useful that the noble Lord has raised this matter. I am aware that this issue has been raised before and, no doubt, it is one of the things that the strategic review will take on board.
Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that, when the review takes place, it will have some built-in mechanism by which it can be expanded to cover any group that would seem to benefit from the scheme and who should benefit from it, because we do not want to go through this again with the next group?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that we will be casting the net wide in the process of consultation so that those who believe that they have a direct interest and an input into the strategic review can make their views well known to the department. The department works very closely with DPTAC, the disabled transport policy advisory group.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say why the department cannot apply basic common sense? Anybody who sees a mother struggling with an autistic child or a carer struggling with an autistic adult will know just how difficult it is to get an autistic person to the shops. They cannot travel on public transport and their carers cannot control them in order to walk long distances to the shops. Why can they not be given a blue badge?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely accept the views expressed by the noble Countess on this issue and I fully understand where she is coming
23 Apr 2007 : Column 502
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing problem of the theft of blue badges? Is he also aware that there is a thriving black market? Badges can be sold for money, which is sometimes subsequently used to fund the use of illegal drugs. I hope that that is being taken in as part of the review. Can he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to stop this theft and to work in partnership with the local authorities and the police to avoid it continuing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that was one of the issues raised and understood as part of the original review. The plan is to introduce holograms to both individual and organisational badges for security purposes so that they are not subject to the fraud to which the noble Lord makes reference.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the fact that people with autism can behave irrationally? They can run amok or they can sit in the middle of a busy road as they are unaware of the dangerous activity. On any reasonable criterion, that kind of behaviour qualifies them for a blue badge. Will the Government bear that in mind in this review?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I have said several times, the strategic review will take place in the summer. It is hoped that firm recommendations can be developed towards the end of the year, with a new policy and strategy to adapt the blue badge scheme at the beginning of next year.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that—as I was surprised to find in the forms and documents for my blue badge—the fundamental conditions for blue badges are now controlled by the commissioners in Brussels? Many of us with blue badges do not want to find that we have rights not merely to park in London and elsewhere but also in Dubrovnik and Vienna.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord approaches the issue from an interesting angle. We are trying to ensure some commonality in blue badge schemes across Europe. That informs part of our thinking.
Lord Acton: My Lords, could not the autistic be given the blue badges now and the Government have their review afterwards?
23 Apr 2007 : Column 503
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that sounds nice and tempting, but it is right that we should conduct a proper strategic review so that we can go through the various difficulties and exercise our minds on them. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comment. I have great sympathy with him, but this considered approach with proper processes of consultation is the right way forward.
Life Peerages (Residency for Taxation Purposes) Bill [HL]
3.07 pm
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Life Peerages Act 1958 to provide a tax residency requirement for the conferral of life peerages under that Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Vehicle Registration Marks Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Communications Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider communications and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
L Corbett of Castle Vale,B Eccles of Moulton,L Fowler (Chairman),L Hastings of Scarisbrick,B Howe of Idlicote,L Inglewood,L King of Bridgwater,Bp Manchester,L Maxton,B McIntosh of Hudnall,B Scott of Needham Market,B Thornton.That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the evidence taken by the committee shall, if the committee so wishes, be published;
And that the committee meet on Tuesday 1 May at 3.30 pm in Committee Room 2A.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
23 Apr 2007 : Column 504
Climate Change Bill: Joint Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of Wednesday 18 April be now considered, and that a committee of 12 Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Climate Change Bill presented to both Houses on 13 March 2007 (Cm 7040);
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the committee:
E Caithness,L Crickhowell,L Jay of Ewelme,L May of Oxford,B Miller of Chilthorne Domer,L Puttnam,E Selborne,L Teverson,L Vinson,L Whitty,L Woolmer of Leeds;That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the evidence taken by the committee shall, if the committee so wishes, be published;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the committee meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Wednesday 25 April 2007 at 9.00 am in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House;
And that, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 27 March, the date by which the Joint Committee is required to report should be 25 July 2007 rather than 13 July 2007.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was sent to the Commons.
Offender Management Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Offender
23 Apr 2007 : Column 505
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.08 pm
Clause 1 [Issue of certificate]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we had quite a lengthy debate in Committee about who should issue a certificate for a non-jury trial. There was some desire to see judicial involvement in the process, but there was also discussion about whether the Attorney-General might be a more appropriate person than the Director of Public Prosecutions to take such a decision. We decided not to revisit that issue, but we do want to revisit the criteria that the DPP could use for issuing a certificate to conduct a trial without jury. Although we very much welcome the later government amendments on the length of time for which those provisions will be in place, we want to be satisfied that the power of the DPP is not too wide in the mean time.
During Committee, concern was expressed that the threshold that the DPP must meet is too low in judging whether to issue a certificate for a non-jury trial. He need merely “suspect” that any of the stipulated conditions is met and be “satisfied” that there is therefore “a risk” that the administration of justice might be impaired. That is a much lower test than that set out in Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which applies to England and Wales as well as Northern Ireland. The 2003 Act states that there must be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place and that the likelihood of such tampering is so substantial as to make it necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to be conducted without a jury. The requirement in the Bill is therefore considerably lower than that in the 2003 Act.
We have enormous sympathy with the Government's position. Of course, we do not want to set the bar so high that trials are put at risk. However, as there was concern in Committee, we felt bound to return to the issue to ask the Government one last time whether they are confident that they have set the threshold at the right level.
Amendment No. 1 changes the threshold for the first part of the test from “suspects” to “is satisfied”.
23 Apr 2007 : Column 506
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, used the phrase “reasonable forseeability” as the standard that the DPP should reach before issuing a certificate—that is, that it is reasonably foreseeable that the administration of justice would be impaired. We have tried to build on that suggestion in Amendment No. 2.
As I said, we do not want to put trials in Northern Ireland at risk. However, we want clear assurance that the DPP needs to believe that there is a particular degree of certainty in his decisions when issuing certificates for non-jury trials. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I shall be very brief and perhaps a little general. We supported this amendment in Committee but, before I go any further, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the private consultation that we have had and for the time that he has put in to try to get, to put it simply, the right answer and the right balance in the Bill.
This Report stage is short, neat and succinct. It reflects the Committee stage and the work of the Attorney-General and his team. I have spoken to a number of people outside the House, including Lord Carswell, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Campbell, a High Court judge, Sir Hugh Orde, the chief of police and so have taken a lot of temperatures and soundings in the Province. With a few exceptions, we probably have a balance that is as near right as it can get, particularly bearing in mind the sunset clause being introduced by the Government later today. Hopefully my own proposal for a sunset provision on something different will be accepted as well.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |