Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

We should come on to talk later about congestion, because that is another very serious problem, but if the Minister would answer those questions for a start, I would be very pleased.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first time to speak in Committee, I declare an interest as an elected councillor.

The amendments in this group are almost all proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with the exception of Amendment 5, in the names of my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Berkeley. They are all seeking to make improvements to the Bill, with important clarifications and additions on the face of the Bill, and we are generally supportive of them. I think it is important to give certainty in legislation and clear direction.

As I said at Second Reading, there is a lot in this Bill that we can support and we will play a constructive role in seeking to make improvements to what is before us to halt the decline in bus use outside London that is all too prevalent and has already been referred to today. Putting passengers at the heart of our discussions on buses must be a priority, as well as ensuring improvements for disabled travellers, advanced ticketing and other measures, which we will discuss in our deliberations over the next few weeks and months.

I very much concur with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in respect of the impact assessment and on the putting together of the Bill. It is interesting to note that, on the first day in Committee, we already have government amendments. This is a Lords-starter Bill—it has been nowhere near the House of Commons—and, as we have heard, we have been waiting for a very long time for this Bill to arrive, but straightaway we have got a series of government amendments. This is not as bad as the Housing and Planning Act—we have an impact assessment and other information from the Government—but generally the Government need to sharpen up their act when it comes to presenting legislation to Parliament. They often make things much worse for themselves because Members on all sides get very frustrated when they do not have the right bits of paper in the right order in good time, in proper sequence, which then gives them more difficulties. So the Government themselves should reflect carefully how they present legislation to Parliament, because they may find that they make things much easier for themselves if they get it right in the first place, so we do not have to catch up as we go through the discussions.

The first amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, changes the emphasis from saying that in making an advanced quality partnership scheme “one or more of” the outcomes will likely be achieved. The outcomes mentioned are,

“an improvement in the quality of local services that benefits persons using those services … a reduction or limitation of traffic congestion, noise or air pollution”,

and an increase in bus use or, at the very least, an end to the,

“decline in the use of local services”.

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is more ambitious in saying that we “will achieve” these outcomes, whereas the Government use the words, “are likely to”, which does not seem very ambitious for a new piece of legislation.

The next four amendments in the name of the noble Baroness give specific requirements for issues such as services in rural areas. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, in that respect. The amendments refer to “advanced ticketing” and a reduction in pollution, taking into account people with disabilities and other factors, along with geographical location, which should be part of whether a scheme should be made. We are very much supportive of them.

Amendment 5 in this group, proposed by my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Berkeley, adds an additional requirement to reduce,

“the deterioration of local services”,

and refers to,

“the maintenance of quality levels of those services”.

It is important to make provision to make sure that there will not be deterioration in services under any new scheme. I very much agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Bradley today, and in particular agree with him that the Bill needs to be an Act so that the devolution deal for Greater Manchester can be brought into effect—although, of course, given where we are now, I do not think that there will be any problem there whatever. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he makes his response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on this first group of amendments. On the general point raised by several noble Lords on the impact assessment and its publication and availability yesterday, I assure noble Lords that the intention was not to have a delay in publishing as such. It was reviewed to ensure that additional policies and full detail could be provided. I take the point that noble Lords have made: if a document is produced 24 hours before Committee, that is not the best timing to allow for detailed analysis. A point was made about rural impact, and whether that was considered. Rural-proofing is mentioned in the impact assessment, and some noble Lords have expressed their regret at the very limited assessment. However, open data offer particular opportunities to increase rural services.

On a few other administrative points before I come on to the amendments, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for not responding in full to her questions. I shall follow them up with immediate effect and ensure that she has a timely response. In fact, I am looking over to the Box with a rather hard stare, if not a glare, to ensure that that is done in advance of the next Committee sitting, which is next week. That is something that I shall follow up with officials.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This Bill has a lot of support from around the House, and the Government are making life more difficult for themselves by not getting these things out in advance. We have been waiting for this Bill for well over a year. Why has this stuff arrived literally this morning when the department has had a very long time to get it all ready? The situation is of the Government’s own making. A bit more planning would make things much easier. Although this is not the worst example, it is incumbent on the Government to get things out to Members and to the wider public who are interested.

[Lord Bradshaw]

To add to what the noble Lord has just said, the Bill is full of econometric analysis, which is extraordinarily time consuming and also almost incomprehensible to anybody who has not had training in it.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have answered the questions raised by noble Lords. While some may have been reassured, I hope that my explanations have been helpful. In that context, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I return to my previous intervention and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Minister expressed concern and disappointment, and hoped to do better, but he did not answer the question that either of us raised. I have seen no notes coming over from the Box, and perhaps he cannot answer today, which I would fully understand. However, I hope that he wants to answer the points that we raised and will agree to write to us.

[Lord Bradshaw]

I want it to be absolutely clear that when the bus service operators grant is devolved to the metropolitan authorities, no more money will be available anywhere, other than that which is devolved, and that the bus service operators grant will remain to be paid to operators outside the franchised area. The balance of that money needs to be looked at, because a smaller subsidy within an urban area as a result of a cut in the bus operators grant may make the service vary in quality and run less frequently, but the same amount of money in a rural area is the difference between having a bus service and none at all. The Minister should reflect on this. I would also like to know when the working party set up in April is expected to report and whether it will take any independent advice or whether there will be some internal arrangement to which no one will have access.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I think I can probably help the noble Lord by speaking specifically about Amendments 19 and 68. One of the problems with the Bill is its scattergun approach to giving the Secretary of State additional unspecified powers. As the noble Lord has clearly picked out, these are two examples among dozens of broad powers. The Government have made a list, from (a) to (f), and then they say, “In case we’ve forgotten something, we’ll just give the Secretary of State the power to deal with life, the universe and everything”.

By putting these amendments before your Lordships, we hoped to probe exactly what the regulations might look like. To take up the theme of the Delegated Powers Committee report yet again, I say that the powers are too vague. The Secretary of State is being given very broad powers without specifying properly, even in the Explanatory Memorandum, what those powers will be used for.

Ideally, draft regulations should have been available by now, at least on one or two aspects of the Bill. It is hopelessly optimistic to think that they might be coming out any day now, because we have only just had the impact assessment, and we are still awaiting the response to the Delegated Powers Committee. But that is what we should be doing—looking at drafts to find out about the tenor of a Bill as broad and as dependent on regulation as this one is.

The success of advanced quality partnerships, and of enhanced partnerships and franchising, will stand or fall on the quality of the regulations. If the regulations are too onerous, the Bill will fall into the trap of the 2008 Act and prove impossible for local authorities to manage and implement, and will therefore fail. But the regulations have to be sufficiently ambitious and robust to deliver a true improvement in service.

I have spoken to Amendment 19. Amendment 68 is simply a similar example in the case of franchising. One amendment relates to advanced quality partnerships and the other to franchising. I remind noble Lords of the tenor of the criticism in the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks to insert a new subsection saying that an operator can provide services only if those services are provided within an advanced quality partnership or another scheme that meets the outcomes set out in subsection (6). I support the amendment, as it seeks to ensure that we get some improvement in bus provision as a result of this legislation, and would leave less to chance.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made some important points about congestion, the effect it has on bus services, and the other effects of poor air quality in many areas, including some of our smaller towns, villages and hamlets.

If the Minister is not going to accept the amendment I hope that we shall get a full explanation, because the Bill is driven by the need to improve bus services and save them from further decline outside London, and the amendment would be helpful in that respect.

Amendments 19 and 68, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke, seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make further provision under regulations about “incidental matters”. We ought to be careful when we give powers to Ministers. I suppose it all depends on who defines “incidental matters” and what the scope of those matters is. I am not against giving sensible and proportionate powers to Ministers, but I also want to see clarity and openness, and these provisions have a feeling of opaqueness about them. So I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responds, we shall get a much clearer explanation about what is intended here; it will help the House enormously if he can give one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was right to raise this issue. It is important that we get these things on the record, so that we can see what the Government intend to do. There may be a number of incidental matters, but if they all come together they could become one quite big matter, so we should be very clear what the Government’s intention is in this respect.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)]

Before the Minister responds, may I take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Snape? It is true that some small bus operators may have run services that were not desirable or sustainable but, as the impact assessment makes clear, it is also true that there is often little real competition between the large bus operators. They operate, and have operated—certainly in West Yorkshire—in a predatory manner, to reduce competition and squeeze out smaller and new operators. That side of the reality needs to be included in the balance. That is one of the reasons why I support the Bill, why I commend the Government for their frankness in assessing all this, and why, later, I shall speak strongly in favour of franchising.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the explanations and the assurance in this regard that the changes introduced under this provision are only incidental will enable the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

May I push the Minister a bit further on incidental matters—what does he mean by that? In my contribution I said that you might have one incidental matter but if you have two, three or four it can become quite a big issue. Maybe he cannot do it now, but it would be useful if he could clarify the word “incidental” and what he means by that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will of course do so and will write to other noble Lords in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 7 —again in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—seeks to put on the face of the Bill another measure that may be specified in the scheme. This one is a requirement to contribute to reducing congestion on bus routes. With increasing bus use and bus service improvements, there will be a reduction in congestion on our roads, particularly in our towns and cities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, that is a win-win measure for us all. It is a welcome prospect for everyone. It means we can breathe cleaner air, there are fewer emissions released which harm our atmosphere, and journey times can be reduced. More people will use buses and car journeys can be reduced, with all the benefits to health; generally this is better for everyone.

The amendment, as I said, puts this aim on the face of the Bill. It is a very good idea; it is one of the proposals that should be specified in the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, I hope the Government can accept this, or at least agree to reflect on it, before we move to Report. It would be remiss if we could not get something like this on the face of the Bill.

As I have said in previous debates, we need to improve our bus services outside London and reverse the decline we have seen in recent years. One of the challenges of the Bill is to reverse that decline and, by improving bus services, we will have cleaner air. Reducing congestion is one of the ways we can have more people on buses and out of their cars.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked in his opening remarks about how Ministers before and Ministers today might respond, in terms of what decisions to leave to local authorities, and that this was a matter for them. I did at one point think he had advance notice of part, if not all, of my speaking notes. But undoubtedly, one of the new powers under an advanced quality partnership regime is to allow local authorities to introduce a range of measures to improve bus services. The Bill does not define—

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My view is that bus drivers are greatly undervalued. They do a hugely complex job. They do not just have to drive the bus safely; they also have to manage the passengers, not all of whom are easy people to deal with. Training and refresher training for drivers is essential. It is very important in dealing with disability and with customers as a whole. At the moment, bus drivers undertaking training do not have to achieve anything. They have to attend, but they do not gain a qualification as a result of achieving a set standard. It is time that we empowered bus drivers, if I can put it that way, with further information, knowledge and skills by making sure that they get regular training of sufficient standard and quality that it enables them to do their difficult job better. They deserve to have the very best possible skills and training to do their job. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks to put in the Bill a provision to provide drivers with continuous training in the standard of service that may be specified in an advanced quality partnership scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, set out very clearly the reasons why this amendment is necessary and welcome, and I agree with the points which the noble Lord and other noble Lords have made.

Anyone in a professional job, particularly one in which there is responsibility for people’s safety, should be given continuous training to ensure that they are delivering their job to the required standard, are aware of particular issues, problems, ideas and practice that have come into play and know how to resolve disputes and issues in a proper manner when they are doing their job. I agree that being a bus driver is not only a responsible job but a very difficult one. I have seen it myself. You get on to the bus and you see the way some people abuse bus drivers. It is dreadful. I come from a family of cab drivers. All my family, other than me, have driven black taxis in London, so I know the problem of dealing with people. Bus driving is a very difficult job, and bus drivers deserve our support.

The amendment could apply to all sorts of things, not only to professional driving standards but to how to deal with difficult and abusive people and how to deal with the prams and wheelchairs issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, there is a court case pending. It is a very difficult and sensitive issue. How do you deal with disability issues in general, people travelling home late at night sometimes a bit the worse for wear, young people with no money and other issues? If there are no procedures or training, problems can often occur that can damage the reputation of the company and cause problems for individuals in positions where they are responsible for public safety. All sorts of things come into play. It is important that we have proper professional training for our bus drivers.

This amendment raises a number of important issues, and I hope the Minister will give a full response. If he cannot accept the amendment today, I hope he will agree that this is an important issue that should be looked at and reflected upon. It raises an important issue that we should be sure we deal with properly.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords for their participation in this short debate, although I am mindful that the next time I get into a black cab having just finished a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I will be glowing in the remarks I make.

We will, of course, return to the issue of accessibility, which the noble Lord also touched on, at a later stage in our proceedings. I have met various noble Lords on this issue, and I assure the noble Lord, and all noble Lords participating in the debate, that the Government take it very seriously.

One of the new powers under an advanced quality partnership regime allows local authorities to specify the standards of service that operators must meet in order to run local bus services on routes covered by the scheme. These standards are set out in new Section 113E(4) and (5) of the Transport Act 2000, as set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would add to this list of standards of service.

Amendment 10 would allow a local authority to specify the training regime for bus drivers on local services on the routes included in the scheme. Driver training is in two parts. The first is the mandatory training that all bus drivers must undertake in order to hold and retain the appropriate licence to drive buses. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about achievement, but I think many bus drivers would say that they do achieve a particular standard. These mandatory training requirements are set out elsewhere in legislation.

The second area, which noble Lords also mentioned in various contributions, is customer training. Such training is generally a matter for the employer. In this case, the driver is often the sole customer face of the bus company, and how they deal with passengers can have a big impact on how that bus service, and the bus operator more generally, is perceived. Noble Lords have referred to dealing with those with disabilities, and dealing with wheelchairs and pushchairs. Of course, as has been mentioned, there is a court case pending on that subject—so noble Lords will appreciate that there is little I can say at this time. How bus drivers are perceived, in terms of the service customers get from the driver, is often how the operator is also then perceived. Good customer training ultimately benefits the bus operators, and by providing a better service they increase the number of passengers.

In presenting this amendment, the noble Lord may also have had disability awareness training in mind. The mandatory disability awareness training provisions of EU Regulation 181/2011, due to come into force in 2018, would have required all bus drivers to undergo disability awareness training. But I am mindful of the situation that we now find ourselves in. Let me assure noble Lords that we are considering how to take forward the issue of such training in the longer term in the light of the referendum result. This important issue cannot be considered piecemeal, so the Bill is perhaps not the appropriate place to start that process. As I have already said, we are looking into how we can ensure that those mandatory requirements are met.

However, in practice, as noble Lords will know, most bus drivers already undertake this training as part of their certificate of professional competence, for which they must complete 35 hours of training in every five-year period. This is another obligation under a European law which we will need to consider over the coming months. We are also developing guidance on disability awareness training to provide consistency across the industry.

In view of this, I believe that, other than with the mandatory requirements, it should be for the bus company, as the employer, to decide what further training is most appropriate, taking into account the type of service, where it runs, and the range of passengers using the service. I hope that with that explanation, and with the assurance that we are looking at certain requirements in the light of the result of the referendum vote last week, the noble Lord will feel minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, seeks to provide free bus travel to homeless families placed in accommodation outside the local authority they normally reside in, with free bus travel under the various schemes referred to in the Bill. These amendments raise an important point, which is that homelessness and the housing crisis is resulting in people and families being housed in temporary accommodation, many miles away from where they normally reside.

As the noble Earl said, this then brings a whole raft of problems—about living in isolation; about being part of the community and then being taken away from that community; and about having to change schools or make a very long journey to get to school or work, or to see family and friends. Bus fares then become prohibitively expensive. The noble Earl raises a valid point in his amendments, but I think that the situation is much worse, particularly for homeless families in London. These families can find themselves sent to Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham and other cities in England and Wales, hundreds of miles away from the place they normally reside, way beyond the distance of a reasonable bus journey.

This is no way to treat people. We have to deal with the housing crisis so that people can have stability in their lives and live in homes they can either rent or buy, be that in the public or private sector. These homes need to be warm, safe, dry and affordable. We all know the rents charged in London can be truly shocking. Our society needs to create a situation where people can live together side by side, in homes where they can be part of the community.

My view is that these amendments raise an important issue due to the crisis we face. I am not sure they solve the practical problem, but I do think the noble Earl is right to highlight this issue. The reality is that people’s other problems are compounded by their being placed so far away. That is the difficulty. I do not know whether assisting with bus travel will deal with these matters. As the noble Earl said at the end of his remarks, the issue of cost comes into this too, as implementing the proposal could be prohibitively expensive.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in thanking the noble Earl for bringing this important issue to the fore. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has said, the amendments in front of us require operators of services delivered under franchising or enhanced partnerships, or advanced quality partnerships, to provide free bus travel for the homeless families placed outside of their local authority area. Like the noble Lord, I am sympathetic to the broad aims of the amendment and know that buses provide a lifeline for many in our local communities. However, having listened very carefully to the noble Earl, I think there may be more appropriate ways to address the issue, and I will of course pass on the issues he has raised to my noble friend Lord Freud.

As I have said before, this Bill will enable devolution. Reflecting on the noble Earl’s contribution, I would say that it will give local areas more control over their bus services. The issue highlighted may be another of the issues that particular authorities are looking to address. If so, they will be able to explore the options open to them through the tools provided in the Bill. I remain concerned that, as drafted, the amendment will perhaps unnecessarily tie the hands of authorities looking to implement franchising, advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships. I fully accept that that is not the intention of the noble Earl’s amendment in requiring authorities to provide free travel where the benefit is not available in other parts of the country. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I believe it is an important point to raise.

I hope our discussion today and my comments have indicated to the noble Earl that we are sympathetic to the broad aims of the amendment. However, I maintain that there are more effective ways of tackling the problem that he has raised. I hope this has assured him to the extent that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 18, 57 and 58, relating to Clauses 1 and 4.

Amendment 57 amends new Section 123H to make it clear that a franchising scheme cannot co-exist in an area where an enhanced partnership or advanced quality partnership scheme is in operation. The amendment is intended to tidy up the Bill rather than change the policy outcome.

Advanced partnership schemes and enhanced partnership schemes operate in a deregulated market. In such a market, operators can plan bus routes and charge their own fares. Both schemes require local services to comply with certain standards but do not allow the authority to dictate what services should be provided and at what price.

Under a franchising scheme, the deregulated bus market is suspended and services can operate in the franchised area only if they are run under contract or a permit or are an interim service. In practice, therefore, the partnership arrangements would cease to have effect when a franchising scheme came into force in the same area. The amendment provides for an enhanced partnership plan, enhanced partnership scheme or advanced quality partnership scheme to be revoked or varied so that it ceases to relate to the area in which the franchising scheme is being introduced.

Amendment 58 amends new Section 123H to provide that the authority or authorities to whose area or combined area the varied plan or scheme continues to relate may vary the remainder plan or scheme as they consider appropriate. The amendment stipulates that authorities varying an enhanced partnership plan or scheme in these circumstances do not have to satisfy all the tests described in the section that deals with variation of an enhanced partnership plan or scheme. For example, they will no longer have to have regard to the desirability of varying a plan so as to include in the area to which the plan relates any part of another authority’s area. However, the authority would still need to seek the support of operators and could vary the plan or scheme only if a sufficient number of operators did not object.

Amendments 14 and 18 make consequential amendments to new Sections 113F(4) and 113M(6) respectively. The reference to “section 123H(6)” has been deleted as a consequence of Section 123H(6) being removed by Amendment 57.

The letter explaining these government amendments was sent to noble Lords on, I believe, 16 June. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am not against the amendments as such. I made the point in earlier contributions that this is a Lords starter Bill, and here we are on the first day in Committee and the noble Lord comes to the Dispatch Box with some tidying-up amendments. It would be useful if he could explain to the Committee how the Bill got here. I assume that there is a meeting in the department in which things are looked at and signed off, with people saying at some point, “We think the Bill is all ready to go”. However, it has been in this House for three weeks and we have a raft of these tidying-up amendments. That says to me that there is surely something wrong with the signing-off process in the department. The Government have already uncovered issues and problems that should perhaps have been discovered before the Bill was brought to the House. So it would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain who signed off the Bill and how it got here. Maybe that needs to be looked at, because clearly something has gone amiss.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, Bills are drafted and consultations and further discussions are held. If any piece of legislation can be improved, no matter at what stage—this applies to any Government and any piece of legislation—I think that Governments are duty bound to introduce amendments that provide clarification or stipulate changes. This is not unprecedented. It is not the first, and will not be the last, time that changes are effected by the Government at different stages. We would be living in a rather perfect world if the first draft of any Bill went through unamended without any government amendments, consequential or administrative. I take on board his comment that we are on the first day in Committee and that there is a series of amendments, but it is better to do it early rather than late.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Of course no Bill is perfect. I accept that entirely. If it can be improved then we want to improve it. My point was more about the procedures in getting here. Most Bills that come here start in the other place. They have had a pretty good going over there and we give them a good going over here. Your Lordships’ debates highlight issues that the departments then reflect on. Here there has not been not much reflection but clearly, between the moment you published the Bill and coming here today, you found that there are some issues. I am glad that you have spotted them, but that says to me that maybe the procedures are not as good as they should be.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord needs to be quite careful because he does not know what is going to happen in a few years’ time. He may find himself in my noble friend’s position, dealing with exactly the same problem. Then I will enjoy teasing the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I hope that very much. I am not so sure how long I shall be here at the present time but I am sure, if the position were reversed, I would probably give a very similar answer to the one the noble Lord has given.

Amendment 14 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. This is one of these usual discussions that we have in this House on lists and on who should be included and who should not.

There are many similarities between the list on page 5 and that on page 42. Amendment 91, which my noble friend will probably speak to, makes the extraordinary suggestion of adding in the customer or the customer’s representative. That is missing from both lists. It is quite extraordinary that stakeholders and their representatives—whether it is any of the bus passenger representative groups, local or national—are not included. As my noble friend said, they might be,

“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit”,

but I think that we all know of instances where authorities have chosen not to consult a particular body of stakeholders because they do not like them for some reason. That is not a good reason, but it happens and I have plenty of experience of it happening. It would therefore be good to include the two amendments in my noble friend Lord Whitty’s name and the two similar amendments to do with stakeholders’ involvement.

While I am on my feet, I might say that it is interesting that paragraph (d) in both lists refers to “a traffic commissioner”. If I lived in Cornwall, it would be no good consulting a traffic commissioner for the south-east of England. He or she as a traffic commissioner would probably not know much about the area. Given that the subsequent paragraph in each list states,

“the chief officer of police for each police area covering the whole or part of that area”,

it seems to me that the traffic commissioner should be relevant to wherever the services will run. I have not put down an amendment on this, but perhaps the Minister will consider it for the next stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendments 16 and 46, in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, and Amendment 92, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would require consultation on an advanced quality partnership or franchising scheme to include recognised trade unions or other representatives elected or appointed by employees affected by the proposals.

Both Section 113G(3), on page 5, and Section 123E(4), on page 17, list who should be consulted. It is both surprising and disappointing that the recognised representatives of the employees are not included in this list. These amendments seek to correct that, and I hope that the Government will give their full support to this, since why would we not want to hear from the employees? They have an absolute wealth of knowledge and experience that would be very valuable to the company in putting these schemes together, and it seems obvious that we would want to include them. I am in full agreement with the comments of all my noble friends who have spoken in this short debate and I look forward to what I hope will be a positive response.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would add further requirements to the consultation provisions relating to franchising and the partnership proposals. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I sympathise with their aims and I accept that this is an important point to raise. I agree that it is important that employee groups are consulted appropriately on proposals to improve local bus services. I agree particularly that significant changes to local bus services could well impact local bus industry employees, so it is only fair that they are given the opportunity for input in such circumstances.

In that regard, I encourage any authorities thinking of using any of the new tools in the Bill to engage with all the interested parties as proposals are developed. The likely impact on employees will, however, be materially different in the context of franchising, where it is more likely that service patterns, and potentially the operators of those services, will change than under partnerships schemes. So I agree that employee groups and others affected by the proposals should always be consulted formally on franchising schemes and I will consider how best to ensure that the Bill achieves the objectives of Amendment 46, as proposed by the noble Lord.

There are a number of ways in which this might be achieved. These range from the use of statutory guidance to an amendment to the Bill along the lines that the noble Lord proposes. I will take the comments from this short debate back, reflect on them and, I hope, work with the noble Lord to come back with something that represents what has been expressed. To pick up briefly the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the need for passenger representatives to be consulted on schemes, this is already included within the advanced quality partnership clauses, the franchising clauses and the enhanced partnership schemes in Clause 9. Coming back to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I hope I have demonstrated that, as Committee progresses, the listening goes beyond acceptance and sympathy to due consideration of some of the valid concerns and issues that noble Lords have raised. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I live near a national park and am affected by its presence. I see no harm in these amendments; in reality, local bus operators can and do work with whomever they need to in devising high-quality bus services. Our national parks are to be treasured. They contain some of the most beautiful and stunning scenery that our country has to offer. We want people to be able to access and enjoy it, and buses can play a vital role in this regard, especially for those without access to a private car. We must not forget that there are many people who do not drive or use a car and so rely on buses for tourism purposes.

I want to see many more people walking in national parks. I do not see enough people walking at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the need for bus services on a Sunday. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, there are already a number of local bus services serving national parks, so in a way collaboration and co-operation between authorities and bus operators is already happening.

Governments of all political persuasions tend to shy away from lists in primary legislation on the basis that they can become overly prescriptive: the more you add to a list, the more you exclude. But the Minister has already succumbed to the persuasion of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this evening. Nevertheless, I suspect that the Minister still has the word “resist” on his brief in view of the legal and technical reasons. Yet as I said at the start of my short remarks, I know that bus operators will work with national park authorities, and indeed any authorities, in pursuit of meeting the needs of their passengers to enable them to enjoy the delights of our national parks by bus.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this next group of amendments, which are proposed by my noble friend Lord Judd and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lady, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, concern national parks authorities in England and how they need to be involved in any proposals for advanced quality partnership or franchising models.

This whole issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and others at Second Reading of this Bill on 8 June. My noble friend told the House then, and again today, that it was puzzling and not right that transport authorities had a duty to consult relevant local authorities but that did not include national park authorities. Many national parks have seen bus services decline, and that brings problems of people wanting to visit these wonderful, natural and beautiful places by other means of transport. I lived in Nottingham many years ago, not far from the Peak District National Park, and traffic congestion in the summer months was, and still is, a huge problem around the towns of Matlock, Matlock Bath, Ashbourne and Bakewell and many other beautiful places there. I think the bus service in the Peak District could be better. It would add to people’s enjoyment and reduce car use, which is a huge problem, particularly in the summer months, and causes problems for all sorts of people.

To make all that happen, we have to have these authorities properly involved and consulted on what is proposed and how they can work with the authorities to deliver real benefits for the area. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, all public bodies have a statutory duty to take account of the potential effects of their decisions and activities on national parks. Of course, that is not always monitored and enforced effectively, and the greater risk here is that these large and combined transport authorities will not get involved in that and that it will not happen. These amendments, by putting that into the Bill and not into guidance or any other sort of regulation will ensure that there is proper consultation. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will give a positive response tonight and that we can get these amendments into the Bill.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lord Attlee and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their contributions. The noble Lord proposes a number of amendments to the Bill, reflecting the importance of local bus services in promoting opportunities for public enjoyment of our national parks. I thank the noble Lord for tabling these amendments and share his enthusiasm for our country’s national parks. I recognise the negative impact that traffic and congestion can have on the tranquillity and the natural environment of some of our national parks, and I agree that good bus services can help address the problem and increase the number of people who can access the parks in a more sustainable way.

Further, I acknowledge the noble Lord’s stance on this matter and am keen to consider how we can ensure that national park authorities are fully consulted as new approaches to delivering local bus services are developed. I further agree that national park authorities’ views should also be obtained by any authority consulting on a proposal in relation to an area that lies near or within a national park, as the quality of bus services available in the area will have a huge impact on people’s ability to visit their natural environment.

I therefore may cause further surprise to my noble friend by saying that I will now consider how best to ensure that the Bill achieves the objectives outlined by the noble Lord. I hope that with the assurances I have given that I will consider what he has proposed and how we can incorporate the very sentiments he has raised in the Bill, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I first refer Members to my declaration of interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

As other noble Lords have said, the Bill is generally welcome and we want it to boost the bus industry outside London when it reaches the statute book, although it is disappointing that we have no regulations. If this is to be another Bill where regulations will not be available until after the legislation has passed, that will be most regrettable. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that that will not be the case, as I think noble Lords will be very unhappy at that. It will hamper the progress of the Bill through this House if we cannot see the regulations. The regulations connected with the 2000 and 2008 transport Acts have proved too difficult to enable anyone to introduce bus franchising. We must avoid the same happening here and the welcome intentions in the Bill being lost in consequence.

The bus is an essential mode of public transport, reducing congestion and giving people access to jobs, education and leisure pursuits. Buses are also the quickest way of providing additional public transport. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the number of bus journeys taken within the bus industry outside London has declined. That can be pinpointed back to the Transport Act 1985, which deregulated the bus industry outside London and allowed anyone, subject to minimum safety and operating standards, to set up a bus company. I also agree with my noble friend about the effects of the cuts in funding on bus services outside London. We have heard how different things are in London, where bus use has doubled, the industry was not deregulated and a two-tier system operates, with TfL specifying in detail what bus services are to be provided and private companies then delivering those bus services.

The Bill seeks to do a number of things, nearly all of which I support. One part of the Bill that we are unhappy about is Clause 21, which prohibits municipal bus companies being formed in the future. Some of the best bus services in the country are run by municipal operators: look at Nottingham City Transport, which has been UK bus operator of the year three times, the last time in 2014. Nottingham is a city I know very well and which my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch also mentioned. Reading Buses and Ipswich Buses, to name just three in all, also provide an excellent service, but this specific model is prevented from being replicated elsewhere. Why?

Moving on to the more positive aspects of the Bill, we support the franchising of bus networks for mayoral combined authorities. The Bill will allow these authorities to provide bus services as they are provided in London, with the public sector specifying the services and the private sector competing for the contracts. This will enable effective action to be taken to improve services for passengers and halt the decline. We support this although, as many noble Lords have said, we would have wished that there was no insistence on having a mayor to get these powers, with other authorities being allowed only to ask for these powers. We shall explore this further during the next stages of the Bill, as it passes through your Lordships’ House.

There are two other forms of deregulated partnerships in the Bill: advanced quality partnerships and enhanced partnerships. Under the advanced quality partnerships, a local transport authority will commit to bringing in measures that will benefit bus services, such as priority bus schemes. In return, the bus operator must meet set standards for the services which benefit from those facilities. Enhanced partnerships go further, with the local transport authority and the bus operators working to manage the local bus market and seeking to get better outcomes for passengers. But there is, in effect, a veto for the bus companies if they do not agree to the proposal. When it comes to things such as vehicle specifications, ticketing structures and timetabling, this type of scheme could be a very useful tool for improving the services locally, although again the regulations here will also be important, so that what is proposed in the end does not become too difficult to deliver.

We also welcome the section of the Bill that introduces advanced ticketing schemes to enable multi-operator ticketing schemes to be broadened and built on. The sooner we can move on to smart ticketing schemes everywhere, the better. Making data available on bus fares, routes, timetables, tickets and bus company performances on all routes is very welcome and should give passengers, campaigners and transport planners very useful information. However, it needs to be made clear who will be entitled to access what data—I assume that will come with the regulations. I do not see that making the data available will cause the problems the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke about. It will be a good way of helping consumers and the general public, and maybe the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can clarify that further when he replies.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I was not referring to the real-time data—I think that would be highly desirable. My problem is with the data on historical passenger demand and so on.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Earl for that clarification. We will explore these things further as the Bill goes through the House. As I said, the provision and use of data will be vital in improving services for passengers.

We are very supportive of the campaign by the Guide Dogs association for audio-visual systems to be a requirement on all new buses. The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, made a compelling case for the funds to be found quickly to ensure all buses are equipped with this facility. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly spoke about the barriers disabled people face and how practical solutions to the problems are needed. Generally, we want to see disability provision on buses further improved and will explore measures to do that during the further stages of the Bill. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, regarding improved access to buses for people with disabilities.

Ensuring that buses run on the greenest fuel possible will help reduce greenhouse gas emission and generally improve air quality. New powers in the Bill to enable local transport authorities to specify emission standards to be met by local bus services are very welcome, although with the enhanced partnership scheme, there has to be sufficient support again from the bus operators.

As other noble Lords have said, the Bill hardly mentions passengers. We think that is wrong, as bus services should be all about passengers. I want to see an enhanced role for Passenger Focus and possibly something in the Bill concerning how passengers can be more fully involved and consulted locally about the services they rely on.

In conclusion, generally we welcome the Bill, but it can go further and can be improved. We look forward to working with the Government and noble Lords on all sides of the House to improve the Bill, to clarify and probe the intention of the Government, and to see it on the statute book making a real difference to people and communities locally by improving the bus services they rely on.

Riot Compensation Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for bringing this Bill before the House today. After being on the statute book for 130 years and in that time rarely used, it is not surprising that the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is no longer fit for purpose.

The riots in August 2011 were a terrible event which I hope will never happen again. They resulted in five people losing their lives, criminality, theft and violent disorder on an unprecedented scale in recent years, and in London alone the damage was estimated to be half a billion pounds. As we have heard, the language of the Act is not what we expect today, which makes it difficult for people to understand and helps no one, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said. There are of course important omissions in the Act; for understandable reasons there is no mention of motor vehicles, no consideration of interim compensation for victims while claims are processed, no consideration of “new for old” replacement of damaged goods, and no powers for the police to delegate the administration of the compensation process.

The present legal framework for compensating victims of riots has simply proved inadequate, so it is right that we carefully consider how the financial burden of any future riot is managed. As we have heard, there is an established principle that the police are liable for damages incurred during riots. The thinking here is of course that there is an implied contract between the public and the police, which again, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to.

In the other place my honourable friends Mr Steve Reed and Mr David Lammy have worked tirelessly on this issue. Both their constituencies were badly affected by the 2011 riots. Mr Reed used the Freedom of Information Act to show that, three years after the riots, 133 victims in London had yet to receive a penny in compensation from the police. Victims are still waiting for £40 million to be paid, which is unacceptable. The Prime Minister of course promised that no one would be left out of pocket but some of the victims have been waiting far too long already for that promise to be met.

The Government have recognised the problems that people have had in receiving compensation, commissioning the independent review chaired by Neil Kinghan. The Kinghan review was published in September 2013 and made a series of recommendations, including that the principle that the police are strictly liable for damages incurred during riots should be maintained. It recommended that legislation ought to protect insurers so as not to deter people from taking out insurance policies, or to inflate insurance costs. It recommended that payments to insurance firms should be limited to businesses insured with an annual turnover of less than £2 million, and it suggested that legislation should allow the police to delegate the administering of claims to a body made up of insurance professionals rather than having to do it themselves. A further important recommendation was that allowance be made for compensating at the cost of replacement goods; that is, “old for new”, as is the case in many modern insurance policies. It was judged by the review that the Act should be replaced.

While we support the principle that the police ought to be strictly liable for damages incurred during the course of a riot, it is important that our police forces are not asked to promise a blank cheque. It is impossible for police forces to plan and budget for the possibility of having to compensate victims of riots without some understanding of the likely costs they will have to bear. To deal with this problem, the Kinghan review originally proposed that insurers would be able to claim only for businesses with an annual turnover lower than £2 million. The Bill instead of course places a £1 million cap on the total claim that can be made, and removes any reference to company turnover, which we think is right.

As I said at the start of my remarks, we welcome the Bill, notwithstanding the very valid points made by noble Lords in this debate. The present arrangements for dealing with compensation after riots are clearly inadequate and a new legal framework is required. We must not fail victims of any future riots as, unfortunately, so many victims of the 2011 riots have been let down and are still waiting for proper redress today.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, join noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on securing, bringing forward and outlining the Bill with such clarity today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, spoke of his profound regret when he discovered that he was to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in this debate, such was the noble Lord’s powerful exposition. It is a challenge for me to have to come to the Dispatch Box after the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Deben’s historical exposition of Lord Mansfield’s conflict of interest. I was led to believe that this would be an uncontroversial Friday morning Bill but of course it has not turned out to be quite like that. I will try to address a number of the issues.

I am sure that we are very thankful that serious rioting continues to be a rare occurrence in this country, but that is not a reason to be complacent. History has told us that a breakdown in order can occur at any time and we should not wait until victims are waiting for assistance before we improve the system to put in place support for them. The Government have used the time since the last serious riots to undertake an independent review followed by public consultation and to use these to create careful and considered new legislation. Her Majesty’s Government wholeheartedly support these measures, which represent the best possible replacement for the outdated and unsuitable Riot (Damages) Act.

The Bill addresses the need to protect public funds from unlimited liability while continuing to offer a vital safety net to communities recovering from the devastating effects of rioting. Based on the experiences of claimants, claims handlers and insurers, the Bill has been drafted in a way which is designed to be more flexible and responsive to the practical challenges that people face after a riot.

It is the Government’s intention that regulations will further enhance the measures set out in the Bill by providing the necessary details for claims handlers to improve consistency in decision-making and allowing flexibility for measures to be updated and adjusted in future. On that point, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the regulations will of course come before your Lordships’ House. In addition, the Government expect to produce guidance for both the public and claims handlers, as well as publicising these reforms so that potential claimants are well aware of the provisions in place to support them.

Having set out the Government’s position on that, I shall try to address some of the issues that were raised when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, read the Riot Act in relation to the Bill. First, he made a number of detailed observations about apparent anomalies and differences in the way that highways and other issues are tackled. Rather than attempt to address these points individually, I shall be happy to write to him about them, placing a copy in the Library.

The noble Lord asked whether there was any hard evidence that people may not get insurance. In areas affected by riots, people can get insurance. However, the 2011 riots showed that a number of claimants simply could not afford insurance and, if the Act had not been in place, hundreds—not thousands—of people would have gone without compensation.

On the question of whether to allow the right to a judicial review of a case, the intention is to allow a right of appeal to a First-tier Tribunal. This is simply to enable more people to obtain an independent decision. The ability to take court action through a judicial review would have been beyond the financial ability of many who would have made a riot compensation claim.

In terms of police liability, the independent reviewer concluded that on balance, while the cause of riots can vary, their occurrence indicates a breakdown in law and order, and it is the responsibility of the police to prevent such a breakdown. This is a principle on which the 1886 Act is based and it remains valid today.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, then turned to international comparisons, saying that this was without precedent around the world. There is of course comparable legislation in Northern Ireland. The only other country where this legislation is in place that we have been able to come up with is Sweden.

On balance, for all the reasons that have rightly been identified, the Bill seeks to look at the outdated, anomalous and anachronistic legislation covering these important areas and seeks to update it for the modern era to ensure that, on the mercifully rare occasions when law and order breaks down and people’s lives and properties are affected, they have a means of redress which is both swift and fair for their purposes. The Government support the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I mentioned the victims of the 2011 riots and the fact that my honourable friend Steve Reed has found out that many victims have still not had a penny nearly three years after making a claim. Will the noble Lord confirm that he will talk to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister about that? Frankly, it is outrageous that three years on not a penny has been paid in some cases.

[Lord Bates]

Some cases are still going through the courts. They are the subject of litigation and controversy, and therefore I am not able to comment on them. Perhaps in the letter that we are going to write in response to some of the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we can provide an update on where we are more generally in relation to compensation that is being paid.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That would be helpful. The noble Lord has used the word “swift” many times. Considering where we are now, I would not say that things have been dealt with swiftly.

[Lord Bates]

Perhaps that was not the best word to use. I am trying to recall the figure but I think that about 4,000 people have had their claims settled. Whenever there is an occurrence of this kind there will of course be significant disputes, often between the insurers and the authorities, about where liability rests. It may be that an individual has been compensated but the insurer is seeking to recover the amount. However, I will certainly look into that because, if matters have not been dealt with swiftly, the intention is that they certainly should be in future.

Immigration: Students

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for securing this Question for Short Debate. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on an excellent maiden speech. She brings a wealth of experience from the higher education, engineering and science fields. I hope that this is the first of very many contributions she will make to your Lordships’ House.

It is not possible in the short time that I have to do this subject justice. I find myself agreeing with almost all the remarks made by noble Lords in this debate. The UK attracts a large number of international students coming to study here for a year or more. We have some of the best universities in the world, offering fantastic courses, leading to highly sought-after qualifications. We are, though, in a very competitive marketplace and it is the duty of the Government to do everything in their power to make the UK an even more attractive destination for international students.

I am not asking the Government to change how the net migration figures are reported as this is an internationally recognised definition, but they can do more. Looking at the net migration target that they have set themselves is one example. The Government have created a conflict for themselves entirely of their own making—it does not have to be there—by wanting to boost international student numbers while reducing their net migration targets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said, that is wholly incompatible. I also agree with her suggestion that we should consider adopting the US system of recording these data.

The Government’s ambition for growth in this sector is not as ambitious as that of our competitors. Our visa system is more restrictive and the UK is losing out needlessly. Shortly, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, will tell us that there is no cap on the number of bona fide international students coming to study in the UK, but the fact is that our numbers have been relatively stagnant in recent years compared to our competitors, which have seen significant growth. The United States has seen an increase of 10% and Australia 8.9% in international student numbers, in comparison to growth of 0.6% in the UK over the same period.

We need to make our system for getting international students into the UK more welcoming and streamlined like our competitors, particularly the United States of America, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, said. People need to feel more welcome. The fall by 50% in the number of Indian students coming to study in the UK is of particular concern. Surveys have shown that the general public do not perceive international students as immigrants, and they bring a significant boost to our economy measured in billions of pounds. International students who study here and have a good experience return home with a very favourable view of the UK. That is of enormous benefit to us, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell said. She rightly pointed out how important that is in terms of our soft power influence in the world.

My time is nearly up so I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for enabling us to have this debate. I hope that we can return to the subject very soon as we need to keep impressing upon the Government that it is in our country’s interest that it acts on this sooner rather than later.

Transport for London Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for enabling us to have this debate today in Grand Committee. We should all be grateful to him for enabling us to highlight the important issue of social housing in London.

As we have heard, we have a housing crisis in London, and in particular a social housing crisis, which the Government are doing nothing to help us with. Only 11,000 council homes were built last year compared to 33,000 across the country in Labour’s last year in office. It is so disappointing that we are seeing people on modest incomes being driven out of central London. London is a wonderful city—probably the best city in the world. That is why the Olympics and Paralympics were such a success—the languages spoken, the community ties from all over the world, the art scene, the sport, the history, and the spectacle of London. However, for that to continue to grow and to keep London at the top we have to make proper provision for people on all incomes doing every job you can imagine to be able to live in this great city, from emptying your bins to sweeping the street, to working as a classroom assistant through to social workers, lawyers and business men and women, to some of the highest earners on the planet, who run some of the biggest companies in the world. Social housing provision with proper social rents has to be part of the housing tenure throughout this capital city.

If the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, comes back and talks about all the affordable housing in London, it would be better if he called it “unaffordable housing” for large numbers of people living in the capital. Where I live in Lewisham, which is a lovely part of London with rows and rows of Victorian terraced housing, people in the private rented sector pay over £2,000 a month to live in an ordinary terraced property, which is £24,000 a year. The new national minimum wage, which will come into force in April, will mean that you will earn £14,000 a year. Even if two people earn £20,000 in London, paying rent of £24,000 a year does not give a huge amount to live on for all the other expenses.

I am very grateful for the briefing note and for the meeting I had with TfL last week. I can understand that TfL must be very frustrated at the time the Bill has taken and the fact that it is still making its way through Parliament. It was originally deposited in 2010, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said. It is in everyone’s interest that these private Bills from TfL and other public bodies make much speedier progress through Parliament. I am sure that TfL would have preferred that the Bill was decided on, either way, in a much more timely fashion. It is probably not in his remit but can the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, talk to whoever is responsible for managing the process of getting these Bills through Parliament? I suggest that the time for a review is well and truly upon us. Six years on an eight-clause Bill, even though it is opposed, is far too long.

The most controversial clause is Clause 5; it is connected with the Earl’s Court development we heard about before, which delivers such a poor rate of return on affordable homes. TfL will say that the development would have gone ahead anyway, as the land it controls is not crucial to the development. I also understand and accept that in order to deliver a transport system that can meet the ever-growing demands of London, options need to be looked at for maximising revenues and minimising costs. That is of course due to the budget cuts we heard about earlier in today’s debate. However, when it comes to the redevelopment, rezoning and using public land to build housing, TfL has a responsibility to London and Londoners not only to seek to maximise the money it receives for the assets but also to ensure that it understands its responsibility and demonstrates its commitment to using its assets in a way that delivers the housing schemes, big or small, which it is involved in. That will enable Londoners to live in their community in a property they can afford to live in and be a part of this great city—and the affordable rent model is only one part of that. As I said, charging 80% of market rent is not affordable for many people in parts of London; in fact, it is totally unaffordable. My plea to TfL would be to make proper provision for property at social rents in schemes that it is involved in.

I understand that we will shortly be advised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, of some amendments to be made to the Bill later, and I am happy with what is proposed. I concur with the questions of my noble friend Lord Dubs. With that, I welcome the Bill back to your Lordships’ House and we will look with interest at its progress through this House and the other place with the amendments we will shortly be advised of.

Immigration Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee because we have heard the significance of these amendments, to some of which I have added my name. I want to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said because we all know that the consequence of not providing for these young people when they leave the care system is serious because they are going to remain in this country.

Given that these young people are likely to remain here and to go under the radar, I simply ask the Minister to comment on the figures in relation to removal directions served on former unaccompanied young people in 2014. As I understand it, 245 removal directions were served on former asylum-seeking unaccompanied young people, but only 15—less than half of 1%—were forcibly removed. What I cannot see is how any of the proposed legislation is going to do anything other than make that situation worse and make those young people more destitute. The Children’s Society has plenty of evidence of those young people ending up sleeping on buses and selling the currency of their bodies to have somewhere to stay. I cannot think that that is the sort of response that we in this House want or the sort of society we want to create.

I will not go through the list of cases that the Children’s Society has given me of people who have now reached the age of majority and are receiving some support in education and training, putting themselves in a position where they can make a contribution to our society. But if we implement a system whereby they do not get support after the age of 18, as others do, we are storing up enormous trouble for ourselves and huge financial as well as emotional costs.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group concern Clause 38 and Schedule 9. I declare an interest as an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.

As we have heard, many noble Lords have concerns about this part of the Bill, particularly the effect it may have on children who do not understand their immigration status and who, on reaching the age of 18, can find themselves in considerable difficulties. As we have heard, Schedule 9 aims to remove most local authority obligations under the Children Act to care leavers with unresolved immigration status.

We have to be clear that in these circumstances we are dealing with very young people—young adults but also very vulnerable people—and before approving these provisions we need to be satisfied that proper arrangements are in place to look out for these young people, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords have said, are at risk of serious abuse and other terrible things. They will lose their entitlement to support from the local authority where they have lived for many years and will not be allowed to remain with their foster parents. This is a particularly tough decision, along with the young adult not being able to benefit, on leaving care, from the services of a personal adviser to provide advice and support in place of a parent.

The Bill is flawed because it assumes that everything is okay, everything has been done properly and there is nothing to worry about—“Just use those criteria to assess them”. But it must be understood that these people will have come here as young children, they can be traumatised and have no understanding of why they are here and why they are on their own. They may have witnessed terrible things that no person, let alone a child, should witness. Is it really correct that we just assume that everything has been done properly when the reality may be very different? The best the young person could hope for would be being placed in Home Office accommodation, potentially far away from their foster family and the area they have grown up in and have come to understand. It can be far away from their existing support networks and their legal representatives. They will have to establish that they are destitute and have been refused asylum and that there is a “genuine obstacle” to leaving the UK.

Amendment 230D, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, seeks to deal with the problem where the young person, on reaching 18, has not had the correct advice and could have been entitled to register as a British citizen or otherwise, and it makes provision for the schedule to have no effect in these cases. It is an excellent amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept or at least reflect on before we come back to this issue on Report. It will be important for the Minister to set out carefully what safeguards are in place to ensure that injustices are prevented from happening and are not built into the provisions in Schedule 9. I endorse all the questions asked of the Minister by noble Lords in the debate.

Amendments 235 and 236, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, seek to maximise parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to debate and approve by resolution the regulations before they come into force. These regulations have such far-reaching consequences that it is right that this level of scrutiny takes place, and I think there are some government amendments on the Marshalled List which have a similar effect.

Other probing amendments in this group, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and other noble Lords, seek to improve the provisions and increase the protections available to care leavers. They all have the support of these Benches and it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the issues they raise. There are a number of government amendments, which I am sure the Minister will explain in detail shortly. I may have some further questions after hearing his explanation.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 239B relates to asylum seekers who came to this country as children, who then progress into higher education. They are currently subject to the rules that provide for higher fees in education because they have come from abroad, so they face the charges that are faced by those who apply to come to this country, as though they were people living elsewhere.

I am seeking an amendment to the Bill to allow for those young people not to be subject to the charges faced by foreign students and, since they have come as asylum seekers and are living now in this country, being provided the protection and safe haven of this country, we might therefore provide for tuition fees to be charged at the lower rate that is charged to people in this country. I should have risen before my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I had not realised that my amendment was in this group. That is the basic argument being made for Amendment 239B.

I have direct experience of this because, as I think I have mentioned in the House before, there is a small foundation which gives bursaries to people who are particularly disadvantaged. A category of them are asylum seekers, so we are very conscious of the problems that young people have when they come to this country and are given a safe haven. They are then often the most diligent at sixth-form colleges and in further education, and go on to higher education, but they face this incredibly high bill, although they have very little resource at all. We can help them in the tiniest ways, but they are facing the increased fee as if they were a well-to-do person applying to come to study in this country from abroad. So we think that the Government might want to look at this matter.

Immigration Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

231: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the rules relating to refugees reuniting with family members
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the current rules on refugees, or those granted humanitarian protection, reuniting with close family members in the United Kingdom.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the implementation of the provisions in the EU Dublin III Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013) for spouses or children under 18 with refugee status or those granted humanitarian protection to be reunited with family members in the United Kingdom;(b) options for allowing British citizens to sponsor close family members recognised as refugees or granted humanitarian protection; and (c) options for extending the criteria for family reunion to include children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses, civil or unmarried partners or siblings who have refugee status or have been granted humanitarian protection and have close family members in the United Kingdom.(3) A copy of a report on the review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 231 and Amendment 234, which will be spoken to shortly by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, both seek to put in the Bill revisions concerning the reuniting of refugees with their family members who are resident in the UK. Again, we are dealing with people in some of the most desperate situations in which you could find yourself. The UK has always had a proud record of being a safe haven for people in such circumstances. The British Red Cross, in its very helpful briefing, provided a number of examples of families who have been split up due to the age of the children, although the whole family has fled a conflict zone. Noble Lords will understand the distress that causes.

Our amendment is very simple. It asks the Secretary of State to conduct a review, which must consider,

“the implementation of the … EU Dublin III Regulation”,

in addition to allowing close family members who are recognised refugees or have been granted humanitarian protection to be sponsored by relatives who are British citizens living in the UK, and,

“options for extending the criteria”,

for who can be considered. A copy of the report,

“must be laid before … Parliament within six months”.

The review would help the Government deal with a number of issues and to examine whether we have the best arrangements in place when dealing with refugees and reuniting them with their families in the UK. That means having the best and fairest rules in place, not just those that seem the harshest.

Some of the issues that could be looked at in the review include the fact that there is no legal aid for sponsors in the UK, as legal aid for this area ended in 2013. Has that policy improved the situation? The rules are restricted to immediate family members only, which means partners and children under the age of 18, so older children, just over the age of 18, are not eligible. There are also issues about adopted children, who are at present regularly refused entry while other children are allowed entry. Then there are the European Union’s Dublin regulations and their application. There are matters such as the applicant not being given the opportunity to submit further evidence if their application is deemed insufficient, forcing them to go through the lengthy appeals route while living in precarious conditions. Is that the UK’s best option for dealing with these difficult issues? Is it the best way to deal with families or to treat vulnerable families? I beg to move.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the all-party trio who have added their names to Amendment 234. Its purpose is to make family reunion easier. It has been drafted by the British Red Cross, to which I am very grateful. Your Lordships will notice that the proposed new clause applies only to those with international protection needs—those who have a genuine fear of persecution or who have been forced to flee their homes and country by war, ethnic clearance or genocide. It does not, therefore, open the door to uncontrolled flows of economic migrants.

It is important to know that refugees and protected people in Britain may already bring in their spouses and children. Our amendment would widen the category to include close family members—that is, children aged over 18, dependent parents and grandparents, civil partners and siblings. Such close kin are essential to a full normal family life. Sponsorship from Britain is, however, limited in the amendment by requiring the incomers to be registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or equivalent authority in other countries. Secondly, they should not be a charge on public funds when they are here. In this context, your Lordships may like to note also Amendment 234AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

The limitations that I have mentioned are important ones, so let no one say that this would be a free-for-all. Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause provides a second legal channel for claims to be made by close family members from overseas. I argue that it is desirable to have in this way a kind of two-way process, available both from this country and from overseas.

I would like to illustrate the critical importance of family reunion given what I saw when visiting Calais almost two weeks ago. The enterprising mass of refugees and migrants in France have made their way so far, against the odds, for thousands of miles, from Africa and the Middle East. They certainly include some who have close family in Britain. Indeed, the French social agency that showed us round had met some such people, and pointed out to us one young man in particular who had lived in England and was searching in France for his next of kin. Another category that we should also welcome is those who have worked for British forces—for example, as interpreters in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have some responsibility for such people who risk their lives for our men. We abandon them at our peril.

Sample studies done in France show that about half of those now at Calais and Dunkirk want to come to Britain, while another quarter are probably willing to apply for asylum in France. I have clear advice for our Government: it will be no good sending staff from UK borders to explain conditions here to the camp dwellers or to tell them to apply first in France. Such staff will simply not be credible. What I suggest might work would be to send volunteers from ethnic minorities in Britain to advise on British conditions and on how to apply to come here. That would work even better if our amendment were to be accepted.

While in Calais, we met three deputies from the French Parliament. They were keen to see their own Government speed up asylum applications. They wanted better information for camp dwellers and better co-ordination of relief and volunteer agencies. I trust that these French parliamentarians would agree with me that the French authorities should not bulldoze some of the shacks and tents before alternative accommodation is made available.

To return to our amendment, the Government may say that the third Dublin regulation already provides for family reunion. But who among the refugees knows about this obscure and highly technical, if well-intended, provision? In how many cases have family members actually been able to use it to achieve reunion in this country? I suggest that family reunion is a blessing to all. It strengthens the families themselves, it helps social cohesion in our communities and it assists the Government by increasing family incomes and reducing the need for services and benefits. Perhaps that may not happen in year one, but it will happen sooner rather than later.

We all know that the Home Office has huge powers of resistance, but I trust that it will not choose to resist this win-win proposal. Our amendment is somewhat stronger than Amendment 231, while still allowing the Secretary of State some discretion on the drafting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I am afraid that we are not quite of one mind in this House. I take all the points that have been made and I entirely understand the sympathy that has been expressed for individual cases. However, we have to look at this in a wider context. This, after all, is not the 1930s. We face a refugee crisis in Europe which is absolutely without precedent.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explained, Amendment 231 refers to an EU directive which the UK opted into in 2013 before the refugee crisis erupted in southern Europe. However, its provisions are not exactly as described in the amendment before us. Article 8 requires that, in the case of asylum applications from third-country minors, the determining member state should be the state in which a family member legally resides, where that is in the best interests of the child. That is fair enough.

Article 9 goes further in stating that, if an applicant has a family member—unspecified—in another state who is a beneficiary of international protection, that member state should consider the application. That is fair enough.

Article 10 goes further still, stating that where an applicant has a family member in a member state where a first application is pending, then that state is responsible for the applicant’s application. We signed up to that and that is what would happen if people in Europe applied for asylum in Europe and asked for their case to be transferred to the UK. Noble Lords will be aware that a recent court case has underlined that possibility.

However, the suggestions in Amendment 231 go well beyond that EU directive. In paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection (2) the review is widened to consider all British citizens, not just those already granted asylum, and they would all have the right to sponsor family members. In paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2) the reviews suggested would consider extending the criteria to a potentially enormous number of relatives of those who have already been granted asylum in the UK. I think it is quite well known that in the last 10 years about 87,000 applicants have been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in Britain. We have every right to be proud of that. However, if each of those had five or six relatives, we would be deciding to admit more than half a million people who would be granted the right to join those who have already been given protection here. Even that is a very conservative estimate. It does not include those granted asylum in earlier years and does not take account of the fact that in some countries families are even bigger than that.

The fact that you have to apply in Europe in order to take advantage of the Dublin convention is a strong argument for saying that this is not the way that we should go. The main effect of going down this road would be to widen Dublin III and massively increase the flow of people into the EU in the hope of benefiting from these changes. That is a very unwise step to take at this time. If there are thoroughly deserving cases—I am sure there are many—they should be considered on an individual basis outside the rules and let us be as just and sympathetic as we can be. But simply to go down the road of widening Dublin III seems not only unwise but extremely untimely.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

We are asking only for a review at this stage—that is all Amendment 231 asks for.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Yes, I understand that. I am really pointing to what some Members are seeking as the result of that review—and even that would not be the best step to take at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

The rules on Dublin have been explained. I suppose that what we are saying is that we have looked at this carefully and we think that families should be kept together in the best interests of the child. In the case of the Middle East, it might often be best to keep families together in the region rather than locating them here. We have provisions under the Syrian vulnerable persons scheme and are working with the Red Cross to ensure that people understand the current rules under Dublin which they are entitled to exercise. There are exceptions for very difficult cases so that we can be as receptive and sensitive as possible. We therefore do not feel the need for either of these amendments at this stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, my noble friend Lady Lister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates. These are serious matters where refugees need to be treated fairly and compassionately. The amendment in my name is only asking for a review while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, goes a bit further but is specific as to who it would apply to. I hear what the Minister has said and I will reflect on that. I may return to this issue on Report but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 231 withdrawn.

Immigration Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

Under one of the proposals introduced for stop-and-search powers, we are now collecting those data. The ability to make the statements that I have, about how stop and search has actually been reduced, is a very good thing. This is such a sensitive area but also one where I believe a significant amount of good work has been done in policing. We would not want anything in this to in any way undermine that wider effort to improve community cohesion and trust between the police and the communities which they serve. I would be very happy to organise a meeting with interested Peers between Committee and Report to explore this area further, to try to offer further reassurances and to hear more about any specific concerns.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I do not think the noble Lord has really answered the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Lawrence or by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who was an experienced police officer in the Brixton area—he talked about the problems of the Brixton riots and so on. Whatever the intentions of the provisions, there are real concerns about what will happen in practice. Could he say a little more about that?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is right to point to the immense experience of many noble Lords who have spoken, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in policing and of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, in representing victims of crime over many years. That is why I am suggesting, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed, that we ought to look at this. Sometimes there is an overfocus on this particular element, without recognising the wider context of the Bill. This is not being targeted simply through stop-and-search powers but is consistent with the wider aim to reduce the ability of people who are here illegally to live a normal life while in the UK—such as by having bank accounts, being able to rent properties, being able to work and gain employment, or being able to gain a driving licence. In the wider context, it fits, but there are some specific concerns here. It is a very sensitive area. Therefore, I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss it further.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 182 is consequential. Amendment 183 would provide that regulations under these new sections of the Immigration Act 2014 would be affirmative instruments. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and concern the regulations set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill about bank accounts and the processes around freezing orders. These amendments generally seek to improve this section of the Bill by bringing greater clarity to the process. Amendment 180 provides for the court to be able to award compensation, which seems reasonable to me. If a court has allowed an appeal, it has presumably determined that it was wrong to freeze the account in the first place. Taking into account how long the order was in force and the inconvenience to the person or body and being able to award an amount of compensation do not seem unreasonable, taking all relevant factors into account. If the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, thinks that this is adequately covered in Section 40E(3)(b), it would be useful if he could say so when he responds to the debate.

I am not sure whether Amendment 182 has the desired effect when looking at Section 40C and the proposed amendment. Amendment 183 would increase the number of regulations that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which is very welcome. I know the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said recently that I never agree to negative procedures. That is just not the case. However, all sides of the House have voiced concern about the Bill, and the more regulations that are covered by the affirmative procedure, the better.

This section is on access to services. Clause 13 is about tenancies and landlords, who can potentially go to prison for up to five years and be fined. I could not find anything about directors of banks if bank accounts are opened improperly. What happens to bank directors? They seem to be able to get away scot free. It would be useful if the noble Lord will respond on what happens about bank accounts.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

Amendment 178 would require, as opposed to permit, provision for reasonable living and legal expenses to be included in a freezing order. Amendments 179 and 180 would permit an appeal to be made against an order that is no longer in force and allow courts to order compensation. Amendments 181 and 182 would mean freezing orders could be applied for or maintained only if that is overwhelmingly in the public interest. Amendment 183 would make nearly all the regulation-making powers in these provisions subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I take back what I said about the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: I am sure he addresses the affirmative and negative procedures with the due consideration they deserve, and he is eminently flexible.

The noble Lord will know that the Bank of England Bill, which is currently before the other place, puts in a new regime which gives specific responsibility to individual senior managers for various duties. Therefore, individual bank directors will not be able to escape as they have in the past.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

May I press the Minister on this serious point? There are serious provisions for landlords who commit offences, but there is nothing about bank directors. The Minister should reflect on that and come back with regulations. I know he is busy on another Bill, but this is an important matter.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I absolutely agree that it is an important matter. I do not necessarily think that this is the place for it, given that this is an immigration Bill, but I will certainly reflect, along with my noble friend the Minister, on what he said. But it may not be something for this Bill.

Significant safeguards against error are built into the bank account provisions. We already share with banks details of illegal migrants who are liable to removal or deportation and have no open application or appeal. These data are subject to rigorous checks. There will be a further check under the new provisions before the bank takes action to close an account or the Home Office applies to freeze it—in which case, of course, a court is also involved.

As the code of practice will set out, applications for freezing orders will be reserved for a small number of cases with significant funds. The person’s circumstances, including the risk they pose to the public and their immigration history, will be carefully considered. I agree that it must be in the public interest to freeze an account, but not that the legislation needs to say so. We want people with no right to be here to leave the UK. Applying for and monitoring orders will involve a cost to the Government and the courts. They will only be used where we believe it to be necessary. This will be where a person’s history and behaviour make it both difficult and very desirable to remove them. They will also have to have enough money to make freezing it until their departure a significant incentive to leave.

Freezing orders will not cause destitution. The court has a broad discretion to make exceptions, with reasonable living and legal expenses explicitly included. In some cases another source of funds may mean that such provision is not required. Standard provision for such expenses will normally be included when an order is first applied for. Affected persons can apply to the court to have an order varied or discharged, and the Home Office can support an application where it agrees with it. This would allow orders to be swiftly varied on the papers without a hearing.

Courts can consider complicated circumstances, and there is discretion as to which accounts are included. Further detail will be set out in rules of court and guidance. It is appropriate to provide for an appeal to a higher court, but it would be wasteful where an order is not in force. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to make provision for compensation. The risk of an order being erroneously imposed is extremely small. In addition to the checks outlined above, the court will have to be convinced that the order is appropriate and proportionate. I have already explained how it may be swiftly varied if necessary.

I turn to Amendment 183. Key regulation-making powers in these provisions are already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Of those subject to the negative procedure, all but one concern matters of administrative detail. The Government continue to work with representatives of the financial services sector to ensure that these provisions are effective without imposing an excessive burden on business. The remaining regulation-making power is to bring into force the code of practice on when a freezing order will be applied for. It is right that the code is laid before Parliament, so that the Government’s intentions for the orders are clear, but ultimately it will be the court that decides if a freezing order is made. The negative procedure is therefore appropriate. The Delegated Powers Committee has made no criticism of the powers in this schedule and has recommended no changes.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about new Section 40E(3), which I confirm would allow a court to order compensation on appeal. However, there is no route to compensation if an order is lifted before it is appealed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked how an account closure can be challenged if the Home Office data were wrong. Individuals whose accounts are subject to closure will be informed by the bank of the reason, provided it is lawful to do so. If, despite all the checks, a person still considers that they are lawfully present, and that incorrect information has been provided, they will be given the information they need to contact the Home Office swiftly so that any error can be rectified. As is currently the case with data provided to Cifas, the Home Office will be able to correct any error in real time—as the noble Baroness mentioned—so that the person’s details will be immediately removed from the data which are shared with the banks.

The noble Baroness also talked about the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I have explained why I do not think this is necessary, but we will consider with care any further representations from the committee.

There was a question on why there is compensation provision for errors made in closure orders but not in freezing orders. There will be repeated checks on the Home Office data and careful consideration of an individual’s circumstances before a freezing order is applied for. The court must also be convinced that the order is appropriate and proportionate. In the light of those comments, for the moment, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Immigration Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with the exception of the final two, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. They are all concerned with Schedule 1 to the Bill and are generally technical in nature.

Amendments 78 and 79 aim to remove from the schedule amendments to the Licensing Act 2003, which would bring that Act into line with the proposals in the Bill. These amendments highlight the very unsatisfactory nature of the Bill that has been brought before us today, and for that reason, if nothing else, they are useful.

The next part of this group seeks to delete and insert certain words to make changes in emphasis and to clarify at what point action is sought to be taken. To remove the word “appropriate” and insert the word “necessary” in its place would raise the requirement from what is deemed “suitable” or “fitting” to achieve the objective or outcome to something where those exercising the power would have to be satisfied that it is “essential” or “indispensable” to achieve the desired outcome. I agree with the points made in this respect by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

I will not spend any more time on this as there will be more substantial debates later today, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, will be able to answer the important points that have been raised in this initial debate. The final two amendments, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, seek to clarify further what is proposed in the provisions in the schedule, and I am satisfied with them.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to her amendments. Before coming to the questions that have been asked, I will briefly speak to Amendments 92 and 93 in my name. Schedule 1 to the Bill concerns the powers to prevent illegal working in premises licensed to sell alcohol or provide late-night refreshment in England and Wales. These are two technical amendments to Schedule 1 which aim to ensure that those who have applied for a premises licence or a personal licence for the sale of alcohol or the provision of late-night refreshment, and who have not had a decision on that licence application before these provisions have commenced, will have their application determined on the basis of the licensing law in force at the time they made their licensing application.

Amendments 78 to 91 are proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Schedule 1 integrates protection against illegal working into the existing licensing regime, including by adding the Home Secretary to the list of responsible authorities for the purpose of the Licensing Act, by making the prevention of illegal working an objective of the licensing regime and by requiring licence applicants to have the requisite right to work. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness would adjust the threshold at which the Secretary of State may object to a licensing application. They would permit a court to consider whether the appellant has been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK after the date of the decision being appealed against, in effect duplicating the proper role of the tribunal—the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. The amendments would also make changes to the proposed “entitlement to work” definition from the Licensing Act 2003 to prevent immigration status and, in particular, the lack of it being relevant to alcohol or late-night refreshment licensing decisions.

We do not believe that these amendments would achieve the objective of preventing illegal working in this high-risk sector. They would not provide the necessary clarity for licensing authorities or the Home Office in respect of the proposed power to withhold personal and premises licences based on the absence of the applicant’s right to work in this sector or concerns about the risk of illegal working in the premises concerned. They would also result in inconsistency with the standards employed in the wider licensing framework. Changes made by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 have given licensing authorities greater power to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, and it is appropriate that the same level of evidence and discretion is also afforded in respect of the prevention of illegal working.

The Home Office decision to object to the issue of a premises licence to prevent illegal working will not be taken lightly. Schedule 1 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may object only where she is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case are such that issuing a licence would be prejudicial to preventing illegal working. Schedule 1 also provides the necessary clarity on the circumstances in which a person’s immigration status should render them ineligible to hold a licence to sell alcohol. The proposed amendments would permit an individual to apply for a licence even though they are not permitted to work in the UK, or where their immigration status prevents their doing work related to licensable activity. This cannot be right. An applicant who has been refused a licence but is subsequently granted leave would simply need to make a fresh application and include the required information that provides evidence of immigration status.

Let me turn to some of the particular points that were made. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what evidence exists that this is a particular problem. Of the civil penalties served for illegal working in the year to June 2015, 82% were served on the retail industry or hotel, restaurant and leisure industry sectors. A large proportion of these sectors hold premises or personal alcohol licences. Enforcement activity is decided as a consequence of intelligence and does not affect only companies that employ a small number of employees.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what consultation had taken place. The changes proposed to the Licensing Act in the Bill have been subject to consultation with interested partners, including licensing authorities, the police, and representatives of the licensed trade. The consultation was undertaken last summer via a number of workshops, which were attended by the Local Government Association, the Institute of Licensing, licensing officers from seven licensing authorities, representatives of the national policing lead on alcohol, and the police and crime commissioner lead on alcohol. The second workshop included industry partners such as the British Beer & Pub Association, the Association of Convenience Stores, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers. These partners provided a significant contribution to shaping our proposals.

Let me turn to perhaps the most interesting point, raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which is the subject of most of the amendments in this group: the use of the term “appropriate”. This was introduced across the licensing regime in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We want the test in standards to be consistent across the two pieces of legislation. If we ended up with a differently worded test in the Bill before us, that might require consequential changes to the 2011 Act to bring them into line. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am very happy to look at this issue ahead of Report to see whether any change is needed. However, that is the rationale for the choice of language.

With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments, and in doing so I commend my amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group; most of them are amendments to the government amendments and most of them come in pairs.

Amendment 99A is the first amendment of these pairs and deals with the licensing authority having to set an expiry date for a licence for someone who has been granted limited leave to enter or remain in the UK. The Government are proposing that the licence period,

“must end at or before the end of the leave period”,

which could mean a significantly shorter time before the end of the leave period. My amendments would mean that the licence would end at the end of the leave period. It would be fairly obvious that I would want to ask why the Government think it necessary to make provision for it to end some time before the end of the leave period. Presumably, the licensing authority can grant a licence for a shorter period in any event. I can see the need that it should not go on beyond the end of the leave period, but why does it have to be less?

Amendment 99B is the first of the other pairs of amendments. If leave is extended, the licensing authority can set the duration of the licence, which must not be more than six months. Again, I would ask why. I am proposing that the licence should coincide with the leave period. I make the point that I made in the previous group of amendments that we are dealing with people’s livelihoods.

Amendment 117 is pretty much the same as the amendment in the previous group about whether an appeal, having been successful, can be entertained when a licence has been refused and is appealed on. I lost a grip of what the Minister said on that and will have to read Hansard, but he will probably have the same answer.

On Amendments 120 to 124, Schedule 2 provides for guidance from the Secretary of State to the licensing authorities in determining whether an applicant for a licence is disqualified because of his immigration status. My amendments amount to a requirement to consult with representatives of the licensing authorities, including Transport for London.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group comprises a large group of government amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and a number of amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is clear that the government amendments are included to make matters clear and consistent across all relevant lines of legislation. That in itself is a good thing. But for me that further illustrates the point that this legislation has been rushed and ill thought out and these revisions should have been in the Bill from the start.

Also, the Secretary of State is given powers in these government amendments to amend fine amounts by secondary legislation. That may be perfectly acceptable in this case. But the Government like their secondary legislation, hiding behind the limited ability of Parliament to hold them to account in such circumstances, but that I think is a wider issue for the House.

I have looked at the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and with respect to Amendment 117, they have a good point to make. It is not unreasonable for the courts to take into account that, after the date of a decision being appealed against, the person has been granted leave to remain in or enter the UK.

I take it that the other amendments are probing in nature in order to assist the Committee in further understanding the intention of the Government and satisfying noble Lords that what is being proposed is achievable, and of course they can be retabled later in the course of the Bill if we think it necessary. I very much accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that these are important issues that concern people’s livelihoods.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I understand the nature of the amendments and I understand them better now that the noble Baroness has spoken to them. At the same time, I should like to provide some reassurances on the points she has made, in respect of taxi and private hire licence holders who have limited leave to be in the UK, that any licence granted must be for the full duration of the leave period. This fails to recognise that taxi and private hire licences cannot be granted for more than three years, while operating licences cannot be granted for more than five years. As the licence holder’s immigration leave may expire after the relevant maximum licence duration, the Bill must enable licences to be granted for a shorter period.

Amendments 99B, 99D, 101, 106, 118B, 122, 126 and 131B relate to leave being extended by virtue of Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 when a person makes an application in time for an extension of leave, an administrative review or an appeal. While I appreciate the reasons behind these amendments, the Government believe that it is reasonable to limit the duration of a licence issued during a period of Section 3C leave to six months. The provisions would not work in practice without a stated duration, since licensing authorities cannot grant licences of unspecified duration. The six-month duration mirrors the period of an excuse provided to an employer who performs a right to work check on a migrant during a period in which they may have Section 3C leave to remain. If at the end of the six-month period the licence holder has been granted further leave, he or she will be able to demonstrate this leave and obtain a new licence.

Amendment 117 has already been considered by noble Lords in the context of alcohol and late night refreshment licences. The purpose of an appeal is to ascertain whether the original decision was correctly made. It would therefore not be appropriate for the court to consider a subsequent immigration decision. An appellant who has subsequently been granted leave would need to make a fresh application and include the required information which provides evidence of immigration status.

Amendments 120 to 124 would require the Secretary of State to consult licensing authorities and Transport for London before issuing relevant guidance on whether an applicant is disqualified from holding a licence because of their immigration status. This will be done anyway. In formulating these provisions, the Home Office, with the assistance of the Department for Transport, consulted the Local Government Association, licensing authorities, the Institute of Licensing and Transport for London.

In the light of this explanation, which I hope has addressed the key points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I hope that she feels reassured enough not to press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

134: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Asylum seekers: permission to work after six months
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(11) Permission to work for persons seeking asylum must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that new claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a new claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which the submissions were recorded.(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 134 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, would allow those asylum applicants who have been waiting for longer than six months for a decision on their asylum application to be allowed to work. The latest immigration statistics show that about 3,600 applicants have been without an initial decision for longer than six months. The only exception that they are presently allowed is that after 12 months an asylum seeker can apply for permission to work, but only in national shortage occupations.

When this is compared to other countries in the EU, we are certainly not generous. All EU member states, with the exception of the UK and Ireland, permit applicants to work after nine months, and some have gone further: Belgium and Denmark permit work after six months, and in Germany it is after three months. For many asylum seekers, not being allowed to work means that they are unable to develop and maintain skills, and for professional people this can have a very difficult effect on their future employment prospects in this country, if in due course they are granted asylum status and allowed to work, or return to their country of origin or move elsewhere. Allowing asylum seekers to work after six months would also cut the cost to the taxpayer, as those who found work would no longer need to be supported by the taxpayer.

Amendment 134A, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would make a small but important change, allowing asylum seekers to work after 12 months as a matter of right without having to apply for permission. I support the aims of that amendment as well. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, my name is to this amendment. I am particularly delighted that it has been moved from the Labour Front Bench since this was not something on which they felt able to support us during the last Parliament. This is something that we sought to achieve then even though we were part of the coalition Government. We have tabled this amendment to the Bill in these terms in the Commons. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will have a good deal to say on it, as he has had a Private Member’s Bill on the subject and argued for this proposition many times.

I will not take long, but I do not apologise for the fact that the arguments are not novel. According to the latest immigration statistics, I am told by the Refugee Council, over 3,600 applications for asylum have been without an initial decision for longer than six months. As the Refugee Council comments, when you take into account their dependants, that is nearly 5,000 people living on little over £5 a day in asylum support who are unable to work. It seems to us that applications should not drag on and, as the noble Lord said, six months, which is the Home Office target, is not overly ambitious. In any event, what is to be gained by a restriction that continues up to the 12-month point?

It seems that a lot is to be lost: contribution to the economy through work and taxation; savings for the state on asylum support; and, as for the individuals, the impact on their self-esteem, mental health, possible—probably likely—loss of skills, and the ability to find employment when the period comes to an end. It also seems that this restriction reinforces exclusion. For those who stay, their community integration is important and we should not delay it, because more than half of the asylum seekers who come here stay.

This is a very topical point, as a colleague, Suzanne Fletcher, who was a councillor in the north-east and who is still a very active Liberal Democrat, has been all over the media today on the issue of the red doors, on which the Times has reported—doors that were painted red so that the occupants could easily be identified as immigrants. Of course the Minister, James Brokenshire, immediately criticised that, and I believe that the Government are taking steps there. However, from the emails I have seen on this subject today, it has taken years of campaigning to bring this to attention. That shows what power the media have, because Suzanne had taken that matter to the National Audit Office and to one of the Select Committees in the other place.

Would relaxing the current restrictions be a pull factor? Is there evidence of that? I suspect not. If your reasons for coming here are economic rather than to seek asylum, I would have thought that six months would be quite a deterrent in itself.

Our Amendment 134A deals, as the noble Lord has said, with the 12-month period. Currently, if you are here for more than 12 months, although you may be able to work, your work is confined to the “shortage occupations” as designated by the Home Office—for the same reasons, of course, that could be applied to the six months. In addition, however, the list of shortage occupations, which I had a look at over the weekend, seems to be made up almost entirely of technical or professional occupations and often requires references from previous employers, which I suspect are by definition unavailable, or requires UK qualifications. Therefore, asylum seekers would not be likely to get such jobs, because the period of their stay is uncertain, even if they were qualified to do them. They are more likely to get low-skilled jobs that British citizens, frankly, are often unwilling to undertake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I think that I may find myself in a small minority in this Committee, although, I have to say, certainly not in the country. The first point to make is a very general one: it is a mistake to generalise about asylum seekers. Roughly 50% of them claim only when they are discovered. Therefore, it would appear that they come, at least initially, as economic migrants. Of those who then do claim, half are refused, but only half of those who are refused are removed. That is why I suggest that we need to be a bit more discerning about people who are referred to simply as asylum seekers.

As for the amendment, the Committee will be aware—indeed, it has already been mentioned—that the most recent EU directive, No. 33 of 2013, requires that asylum seekers should have access to the labour market after nine months if the asylum claim is still pending. The UK, Ireland and Denmark have, of course, opted out. Nevertheless, the amendment proposes a time limit of six months. It would also remove the current requirement for the job to be on the shortage occupation list, despite the fact that the EU directive provides for such provisions. Therefore, in these two respects, the amendment goes beyond the minimum standards now required by the EU directive, from which we have, as I said, opted out.

Let us be clear that the effect of the amendment would be to make the UK not the most but one of the more generous countries in Europe in terms of access to the labour market, and there is no doubt that that would act as a pull factor for both asylum seekers and economic migrants. The extreme case is Sweden, which until recently allowed asylum seekers to work on arrival. Of course, the numbers went up and up and now it has had to close its borders. So it is absolutely clear that the ability to work is, in that case and more generally, an incentive to people when they choose a country in which to seek asylum.

It is also worth pointing out that people are queueing up in their thousands in Calais—in a country which is perfectly safe. They have every right to seek asylum in France—they would have a slightly less good chance of getting it—but they do not. They want to come here despite the fact that they cannot work for 12 months. I hope that it is the general nature of our society that attracts people, and let us be proud of that, but I come back to the point about balance when it comes to setting up an immigration and asylum system. There has to be a balance between reasonable treatment of people, half of whom are in serious need, and the need not to attract those who may well not be genuine asylum seekers. For goodness’ sake, anyone who has read the newspapers in the last three months will surely understand the need to be very careful on that front.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord referred to the position in most of the European Union where people have to wait for nine months before they can work. Is he saying that he would support a time period of nine months?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

No. I am saying that we should keep it at 12 months in order that we are not more attractive than other countries on that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendment 134A in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that asylum seekers should get permission to work after 12 months as a right. Would the noble Lord support that amendment?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The short answer is no. We have an asylum system which does not work as fast as people would like, but let us improve the system. The obvious answer is to process the claims more quickly and then this question would not arise. However, I would go back to the original, existing system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, in response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the Minister referred to the nature of voluntary work. I think we may need a little more detail on that, and perhaps it would be a good idea if he wrote to noble Lords. It is an important point because voluntary organisations and the people who work for them need to be very clear about their position on this matter.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely agree that it is an important point and I will be happy to write to the noble Lord and others who have spoken on this after our session in Committee today.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I take the point from the noble Lord, and that is why it would be better if our response was written down once we had had a chance to think about it carefully and get our definitions right. I will circulate the response and put a copy in the Library of the House so that voluntary organisations know where they are.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. When applications for asylum take longer than six months, being allowed to work is a reasonable objective. I thank the noble Lord for his response and I look forward to the letter on the points we have just discussed. Some powerful speeches have been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and many others. Surviving on £5 a day is an impossible hardship and it has to be endured for many months. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, the risk is that these people will be driven into the illegal work market where the risk of exploitation is even greater.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the issue of the red doors in Middlesbrough. It is unbelievable and I hope that the Government will take very firm action, but let us make sure that we do not end up just painting all the doors blue next time. I make that point because this has to be dealt with properly. It is a scandal and an absolute disgrace. With that, and with my thanks for other comments made by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 134 withdrawn.