Immigration: Detention of Pregnant Women

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is intended that even before a pregnant woman is detained, her welfare will be taken into consideration. Consideration of her welfare will include the question of whether adequate facilities are available to that woman if she is detained. In the event of detention in an immigration centre such as Yarl’s Wood, there are adequate facilities to deal with pregnant women.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

On 26 April, the noble and learned Lord told the House that on that day there was one pregnant woman in the immigration detention system. He also said that further guidance on the question of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, would be produced in May and laid before Parliament in order,

“that that position can be maintained”.—[Official Report, 26/4/16; col. 1095.]

Can the Minister tell us, first, how many pregnant women are in immigration detention today, and, secondly, what the highest number of pregnant women who have been in immigration detention has been on any one day since 26 April, when he said there was just one? Thirdly, what is the position with the further guidance being produced this month?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the present position, as of today no women with confirmed pregnancies are being detained under Immigration Act powers in an immigration detention centre or residential short-term holding facility. As for the statistics for the period since 26 April, I am not in a position to give a number, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord providing such figure as is available from the present data, which generally speaking are management data. On the matter of pregnant women and regulations, in accordance with the regulations made this week, the Act’s provisions on pregnant women and adults at risk will come into force on 12 July. The publication of guidance on the matter is in the course of final preparation and will be made available as soon as possible.

Domestic Abuse: Rural Communities

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There is no doubt that the problems faced, particularly in rural areas, could be addressed earlier. Indeed, our nationally acclaimed campaign, This is Abuse, has had an impact. We have invested a further £3.8 million in a new campaign, Disrespect NoBody, which we hope will build awareness of these issues.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This is also an issue for police and crime commissioners to address in their respective areas, since through the police budget, for which commissioners are responsible, they can determine the resources, finances, staff and training, and the priority that will be given to and by their police forces to address domestic abuse. The police and crime commissioners can then hold their chief constables to account, and then be held to account themselves, if those resources are not effectively and appropriately used for the purpose for which they, as commissioners, have allocated them. Can the Minister confirm that that statement—of the key and powerful accountable role and responsibility of police and crime commissioners in addressing domestic abuse and violence in their respective areas—is a correct statement of the position?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The position of the Government is that police and crime commissioners will take a leading role in co-ordinating the response to issues of domestic abuse. Indeed, this will be done in parallel to the national statement of expectations, which is a blueprint for local areas and local partnerships, at the head of which will be our successful commissioners.

Migration: Middle East and North Africa

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We would certainly not want to be drawn into agreement with authoritarian regimes in that part of Africa. However, it is necessary, as I said, to address these problems at source.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Government not accept that it is wars, repression and instability that primarily lead to the mass movement of people? If those seeking to come to Europe from the Middle East and north Africa are simply economic migrants, why is it that after every outbreak of violence and repression we get a new wave of people from the area that has just had that outbreak?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I must say that listening to Labour opine on the matter of immigration and immigration control is rather like listening to an arsonist on the subject of fire prevention.

Bus Services

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for having secured this debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss a vital mode of transport that is used by millions of people to get to work, to seek work, to attend hospital, to go shopping, to travel to and from school or to spend a few hours in their busy lives enjoying some leisure time.

The new Mayor of London has already made one policy announcement on reducing bus fares, by enabling passengers to make a second bus journey without further charge within one hour of touching in on the first bus. This will be extended by 2018, once ticketing technology has been upgraded to enable passengers to make unlimited bus transfers within one hour—Labour in action, cutting costs for bus passengers and increasing the attractiveness of bus travel.

There were some 4.6 billion passenger journeys, as has been said, on buses in England last year. That sounds a lot but the trend is downwards. There are commercially operated services and services supported by local authorities. The Government’s consistent attack on local government budgets over the last six years has led to a reduction in the ability of local government to provide the money to maintain bus services which are needed but which commercial operators will not provide themselves because they would not be profitable to run. This situation is continuing and even though this Government are spending money or giving handouts elsewhere at present, some local authorities are still being forced to review the extent to which they can continue to provide much-needed bus services for the communities that they serve, due to funding cuts.

More than half of all local authorities in England have cut funding for buses in the last year to 18 months while some 40% have removed or withdrawn services. Seventy per cent of local authorities have cut support for bus services since 2010. In addition to the cut of nearly a third in funding for local authorities, the bus service operators grant, which provides a fuel duty rebate to bus service operators, has been cut. Local authorities have had to reduce funding for bus services by at least 15%, while bus fares have risen by a quarter over the last five years. Some 2,400 local authority-supported bus services have been cut or downgraded.

Unprofitable but needed bus services account for some 17% of bus services in England outside London—down from 24% in 2009-10. They are often the only form of public transport which people in more isolated communities, outside conurbations and major towns, can access. A Commons Transport Select Committee report on passenger transport in isolated communities stated:

“The DfT must recognise that passenger transport provision is fundamental to achieving the objectives of the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education in isolated communities”.

Of course, one-third of all bus journeys are undertaken by the 10 million older and disabled people with concessionary bus passes, like me. Councils have a statutory duty to provide free off-peak bus travel, but funding for the scheme has been cut by nearly 40%, which means that increasingly councils are having to subsidise this free travel at a time when they are struggling to protect vital services such as adult social care, protecting children and collecting household rubbish.

It was of course the 1985 Transport Act which deregulated bus services in England outside London. Since then, local bus passenger journeys made outside London have decreased, as has already been said, by 37%. More than half of all bus passenger journeys made in England now occur in London, which with its regulated services has seen an increase of some 100% in bus use since 1985—albeit, as I understand it, bus use in London may have decreased last year.

In a briefing for this debate, Transport for Greater Manchester said that in its area, bus patronage has remained flat for very nearly the last 20 years. This is better than across Britain as a whole, but does not stand favourable comparison with London. Transport for Greater Manchester says that one of the key reasons behind what it describes as the poor patronage performance of buses derives from the current deregulated market structure. The problem, it says, lies not with the bus companies but with the system within which the companies are obliged to operate. Deregulation, it says, limits the degree to which bus services can be fully joined up and co-ordinated with each other and with other public transport modes. It also inhibits sensible and easy joint ticketing systems such as Oyster, and, unlike in London, it is not possible to offer a single, simple range of tickets valid on all operators’ services. Passengers, it says, are presented with a confusing array of single and multi-operator tickets, and are forced to commit to a particular ticket in advance of travelling, which can be problematic if their travel needs unexpectedly change.

Transport for Greater Manchester continues by saying that deregulation presents a confusing and ever-changing picture of services to the passenger. It prevents, it says, efficient cross-subsidy. On-road competition means that available bus resources are not deployed as efficiently as they could be under a planned franchised environment. Consequently, deregulated bus services in Greater Manchester are not fulfilling their undoubted potential and consequently are not fully serving the city region’s long-term needs. Franchising, says Transport for Greater Manchester, presents a well-understood and much-used model of delivery that secures the benefits of competition while allowing passengers to use an efficiently co-ordinated set of bus services within an integrated public transport network.

When the Minister responds, perhaps he could confirm that those views on a deregulated bus system compared to a regulated or franchised system expressed by Transport for Greater Manchester also reflect the Government’s view. I do not recall the last Mayor of London—who had some sympathy with the Government, apart from on membership of the European Union—ever campaigning to have a deregulated market structure for buses introduced in the capital. Could the Government also say when the elusive buses Bill is going to start its legislative journey through Parliament, which House it will go to first and when it is expected by the Government to reach its destination and become an Act?

Could the Minister say something about the intended content of the buses Bill and whether, in the Government’s view, it will deliver the changes to the current deregulated market structure that Transport for Greater Manchester is seeking, as set out in the briefing to which I referred? Could the Minister also say, if that is the case, whether the Bill will enable those changes to apply to all local transport authorities that want them?

The Question we are discussing refers to the impact of trends in the provision of bus services on the environment. Buses are becoming much more environmentally friendly, thanks in part to European regulations, but with bus use in decline outside London and the number of buses on the roads falling, the potential favourable environmental impacts of cleaner buses are being diminished, not maximised. Of course, a number of local areas have seen the introduction of environmentally friendlier buses, including London, Reading, Southampton, Newcastle, Bristol and in parts of Lancashire. Transport authorities should have powers to set environmental standards for buses in their area of operation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that is a power that transport authorities generally will be given.

Increasing bus patronage is environmentally friendly, particularly if it results from a transfer from journeys by car. Achieving that includes making journeys by bus a relaxing and stress-free experience. In London, nearly all buses have audiovisual announcements telling passengers the next stop—a crucial facility for those who are visually impaired or hard of hearing. Outside London, apart from areas where local authorities still operate buses, audiovisual announcements are few and far between. Bearing in mind the many calls for such a facility to be provided, including from parliamentary committees, can the Minister assure us that a requirement to have audiovisual announcements on buses—at the very least, on new vehicles—will be included in the forthcoming buses Bill? There is surely no excuse for not doing so. Likewise, can the Minister assure us that the buses Bill will include a requirement for drivers to have the benefit of disability awareness training since, once again, such training can mean the difference between those with a disability feeling encouraged to travel by bus and discouraged from travelling by bus? As I understand it, disability awareness training is, to say the least, patchy.

The buses Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to reverse the damage that has been and continues to be done to local bus services outside London in recent years and to provide, where there is such a demand, for a structure and system for the operation and regulation or franchising of bus services that promotes and encourages bus use, along with the funding to enable these objectives to be delivered. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will reply to the many specific questions raised in the debate and set out how the Government intend to grasp the opportunities provided by the buses Bill for increasing and improving bus services on which so many people depend.

Immigration: Public Services

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I believe that all Members of this House recognise the importance of a controlled migration system that brings us the best and is the best for this country. Only by means of a controlled migration system can we have an effective, workable society that is integrated and settled.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Today, we have had the opportunity to hear from the authentic voice of the Conservative Party—from behind the Minister.

The previous Labour Government put in place a migration impacts fund. Local authorities and health trusts, for example, could then apply for a share of the funding to support efforts to reduce the impact of migration on public services. It was certainly not a panacea to solve all problems, but it did help to raise new funding to support infrastructure. However, the fund was scrapped by the coalition Government within a few months, and little was then done to ensure that support was still given where it was needed.

We have also said that EU funding should be made available to areas impacted by rapid migration to help with public services such as schools and GP services. Are the Government supporting, or will they support, that step?

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, many of your Lordships will have negotiated a variety of agreements and arrangements, been involved in the toing and froing of proposals and counterproposals, and experienced the feeling of, “Okay, enough, let us move on”.

I do not equate that with this issue. I am realistic enough to understand where the Government have got to, but it is not far enough. From my privileged, comfortable position, compared with the asylum seekers, the subject of these amendments, I cannot leave it there. I do not feel, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, that I have done my job and done more.

I want to make it clear that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. To deprive an individual of liberty for the purposes of immigration control should be an absolute last resort. It should be comparatively rare and for the shortest possible time. At the last stage but one of this Bill, the Government introduced their amendment for automatic judicial oversight. We heard then references to detainees still being able to apply for bail and to access legal advice at any time, and so on. That painted a picture which, though technically correct, did not accord with the realities described to me over the years.

The noble and learned Lord introduced the automatic hearing after six months as a “proportionate response”, and said that earlier referral might result in work for both the tribunal and the Home Office at a time when an individual’s removal from the country was planned and imminent. So I was pleased last night that the Minister in the Commons, “after careful consideration”, moved a reduction from six months to four months to reflect the fact that the vast majority are detained for fewer than four months.

At the end of last December, on the latest figures that we have, 2,607 people were detained. Of these, 530—roughly 20% of the detainee population—had been detained for less than four months but longer than two months. Those are the numbers that my amendment is about, although they are 530 individuals, not just faceless numbers.

The impact of immigration detention, which is not a sanction—it is not punishment for wrongdoing—is considerable and reference has rightly been made to the particular impact on mental health. I look forward to Stephen Shaw’s further work and hope that it will ameliorate conditions, but there must always be a significant impact. I do not know, though I can speculate on, the Government’s reason for moving from the proportionate six months to four months, but if they can move, I suggest they can move further. In the mix of assessing what is proportionate, the impact of administrative detention must be a significant factor. Let us reduce it as much as possible. That is why I propose two months.

I take this opportunity to say, too, that in all this I do not want to lose sight of the objective of improving the whole returns process. Alternatives to detention with case managers who are not decision-makers would be more humane, less costly and more efficient. There is plenty of experience of that in other countries. An improved returns system would reduce the burden on tribunals and the Home Office. It may be trite but it is true that efficiency is much of the answer. I hope noble Lords will be sympathetic to my proposal to reduce it still more, and take us further on the journey that the Government have led us on with regard to the period when there must be an automatic judicial oversight of each individual’s position.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In the Commons last night, the government Minister confirmed that the Government accepted that there should be judicial oversight of administrative immigration detention, and that was why they had previously tabled a Motion, the effect of which would be that individuals would automatically be referred to the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after their detention began, or, if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the person within the first six months, six months after that consideration.

That amendment was not accepted in this House, which again carried a Motion providing for a 28-day period of administrative immigration detention, after which the Secretary of State could apply to extend detention in exceptional circumstances. The Commons has again rejected the amendment from this House and has instead passed a government amendment reducing the timing of an automatic bail referral from six to four months, since, apparently, the vast majority of persons are detained for less than four months. Will the Government confirm that that bail hearing after four months of detention will be automatic and will not depend on the individual in detention having to initiate the application?

This is an issue which this House has already sent back to the Commons twice. Consideration obviously has to be given to the role of this unelected House in the legislative process as a revising Chamber, inviting the Commons to think again in a situation where the elected Commons and the Government have made some movement—albeit not enough to meet the views of this House—on the length of administrative immigration detention without automatic judicial oversight.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made a powerful speech. I will say a word in response to it. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and I were focusing on the “periphery” last week and supporting a “fudge”, as he put it. Your Lordships need to focus on the noble Lord’s amendment. It provides that, after 28 days, there would be no possibility of detention of a person for immigration reasons other than in exceptional circumstances. Last week I found that not to be something that I could support and I still cannot support it, because a person can be detained only for the purpose of removal and only for a reasonable period for that purpose. There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days to remove a person who has been detained for immigration reasons. There has to be discussion with the country to which the individual will be removed and persons being removed often do not co-operate with their removal. There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days. Of course, the individual concerned is also entitled at any time to require a judicial assessment of whether it is appropriate for them to continue to be detained for immigration purposes. I am pleased that the Government have moved to a four-month period and I think that is the right result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support the amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this afternoon. I supported her on earlier occasions when we debated these issues. I am particularly pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who has returned us to an aspect of the debate which we discussed at earlier stages.

Members of your Lordships’ House may recall the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, during our earlier debates. She focused on the effects on the unborn child of being detained in these stressful circumstances. I referred to work by the late, eminent psychiatrist, Professor Kenneth McCall, who described the effects later in life on children who had been affected by traumatic events that they had experienced in the womb. On the other side of that coin, of course, the world-famous violinist Yehudi Menuhin said that he believed that he learned his love of music during the time that he was in his mother’s womb. So it may be that the empirical evidence needs to be extended and much more work needs to be done around these things—but our own common sense and knowledge of our own human development probably take us in that direction.

But this is not just about concern for the unborn child. The noble Baroness quite rightly reminded us of the recommendations of Stephen Shaw, which were at the very heart of the debate when we looked at this earlier in our proceedings. He of course recommended that there should be an absolute ban—so this falls a long way short of his recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her phrase, “very exceptional”, is reminding the Government that it cannot be right for us to have pregnant women held in detention in these ways.

I was particularly pleased, like the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to read the remarks of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Enfield, Southgate, David Burrowes, who spoke so well in the other place yesterday. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply, he will respond to the concerns that David Burrowes raised and to the remarks of the Royal College of Midwives—referred to earlier by the noble Baroness—which were quite categorical in saying that we should never keep women in these circumstances.

I have one or two questions to put to the noble and learned Lord. What kind of pre-departure accommodation will be made available when a pregnant woman is being held? Will he say a word about that and will he talk about how those particular needs will be met? Will he also assure us that pregnant women will not, for instance, as has happened in the past, be picked up in dawn raids, put in the back of vans and taken miles away to accommodation, with appalling consequences for the women in those circumstances? There are accounts of nauseous experiences, of vomiting and of people being incredibly distressed by those kinds of experiences. This should be in very exceptional circumstances, as the noble Baroness said.

Finally, I underline the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, about the second part of Amendment 85E. An odd phrase has been included at this late stage to say that,

“a person who, apart from this section, has power to authorise the detention must have regard to the woman’s welfare”.

Those words—“apart from this section”—are, at the very best, ambiguous, and I really cannot see what point they have. Could the noble and learned Lord enlighten us when he comes to reply?

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I could add to the point just made and express the hope that the noble and learned Lord will not only respond to questions raised in this short debate in this House but be doubly determined to do so. I find it extraordinary that when our amendments were discussed in the Commons last night, although they have the not surprising procedure that a Minister opens the debate, there was no reply by a Minister at the end of the debate. So all the legitimate questions raised in that debate after the Minister had finished speaking were not answered at all by the Government. I know very little about House of Commons procedures —that is quite obvious—but it is certainly a fairly remarkable procedure to have a debate where questions are asked of the Government but there is no Minister replying at the end. I hope that that is a defect that the noble and learned Lord will be able to rectify when he replies to this debate.

We accept that the Government have moved on this issue to a position of not allowing the detention of pregnant women beyond 72 hours—or up to a week with the Secretary of State’s approval. This House of course wanted the Government to go further and provide additional safeguards, which were reflected in the amendments sent to the Commons. In the Commons last night, the Minister said that the Government had tabled amendments that made it clear that,

“pregnant women will be detained for the purpose of removal only if they are shortly to be removed from the UK or if there are exceptional circumstances that justify the detention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 486.]

As has been said, the Minister went on to say that the guidance will also make it clear that the guidance would also make it clear that the power to detain should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. Why does the government amendment passed last night in the Commons refer to “exceptional circumstances” and not to “very exceptional circumstances”, which is and will continue to be used in the guidance?

What in the Government’s view is the difference in this context between “exceptional circumstances” and “very exceptional circumstances”, since it is they who have decided not to use the same wording in the Bill as is and will continue to be used in the guidelines? Through her amendment, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett seeks a credible and reassuring answer to that question, and I hope that the Government can provide it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I will begin by answering the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The provision does refer to “exceptional circumstances”. The guidance as it exists talks of only “very exceptional circumstances” applying for the detention of pregnant women, and that will continue to be the policy that is applied in the context of the provision. I reiterate what was said in the other place last night: it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it will be considered appropriate for this provision on detention to be employed.

Investor Visas: Money Laundering

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

At the present time, I am not aware that any tier 1 visas have been revoked. Of course, tier 1 visas lead on to an application for indefinite leave to remain. When that application is made, one issue that is addressed is any suggestion of criminality.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, as I understand it, according to the ONS, 76 fewer grants in the tier 1 investor category, which is the category for the really wealthy, were made in 2015, following changes introduced in November 2014, including the introduction of money laundering checks. In October 2015, Transparency International, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, said that,

“it is reasonable to infer that a proportion of money invested into the UK by Russian and Chinese Tier 1 investors is linked to crimes of corruption”.

Do the Government agree with that statement with respect to the situation prior to 2015 and, if they do not, why do they think that there has been such a significant reduction in the number of tier 1 investor grants made in 2015 compared with previous years?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, Transparency International’s report was looked at and considered by this Government. However, it referred to a period prior to April 2015 of “blind faith”. There was no such blind faith. As I indicated, when an overseas investor made a qualifying investment, he made it through a regulated authority and was therefore checked. As for the numbers, it will be a matter of notice that the sum required for investment has been doubled from £1 million to £2 million. Over and above that, the noble Lord will bear in mind the relevance of the exchange rate over the relevant period, as well. The rouble went from 50 roubles to the pound to 100 roubles to the pound, with the result that the required investment from someone in Russia is now 200 million roubles.

Licensing Act 2003 (Her Majesty The Queen’s Birthday Licensing Hours) Order 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the order makes provision for the relaxation of licensing hours in England and Wales for the weekend of Her Majesty the Queen’s official birthday celebrations in June.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. Licensing hours have previously been extended for the Royal Wedding in 2011 and the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, as well as for the World Cup in 2014.

As noble Lords will be aware, this year Her Majesty the Queen is celebrating her 90th birthday. The Government consider this a nationally significant event, and many people will wish to celebrate the occasion. The Government are proposing to allow premises to remain open later on the weekend of Her Majesty’s official birthday in June. The order will allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Friday 10 and Saturday 11 June until 1 am on Saturday 11 and Sunday 12 June respectively. It will apply to premises’ licences and club premises’ certificates in England and Wales which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. These premises will be allowed to remain open without having to notify the licensing authority and police via a temporary event notice, as would usually be the case. Premises that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets, are not covered by the order.

The Licensing Act 2003 requires the Secretary of State to consult persons she considers appropriate before making a licensing hours order. The Home Office conducted a consultation with key partners, including representatives of licensing authorities, the police, police and crime commissioners, residents’ groups, the licensed trade and the Welsh Government. The consultation asked three questions. First, do you agree that the order should apply to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises? Secondly, do you agree that the order should apply to England and Wales? Thirdly, do you agree that the order should extend licensing hours until 1 am?

The responses were almost entirely positive. There are, of course, some risks associated with extending licensing hours. The national policing lead for alcohol agreed with the proposed order, but highlighted that the weekend coincides with Euro 2016 football matches, when there will be an increased risk of alcohol- related disorder.

The police and crime commissioners’ working group on alcohol raised concerns that a blanket extension to licensing hours may prove disruptive to planning police resources. It considered the system of temporary event notices a more appropriate means for licensed premises to extend their licensing hours as it provides the police and licensing authorities with a means to screen out unsuitable premises and plan for any additional policing requirements. The Government carefully considered these concerns. The Government are unaware of any reports of increased crime or disorder during previous occasions when licensing hours have been extended in this manner. Licensing hours were extended during the 2014 World Cup for a similar period and there were no reports of increased disorder as a result. This order has similar terms to the equivalent orders relating to the celebrations for Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the Royal Wedding. The relaxation is for a limited period and we believe this is appropriate to celebrate an occasion of this sort.

The Government are committed to reducing burdens on business and public bodies where possible. This licensing hours order will reduce the burden on businesses, which would otherwise need to use a temporary event notice to extend their opening hours, at a cost of £21. It will also reduce the burden on the licensing authorities that would have to process the notices. I hope noble Lords will agree that the licensing hours order is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose of the order, which we support. I had better indicate that right at the beginning, since the Minister may get the impression from some of the points I want to raise that perhaps we do not support the order—so I say from the start that we do.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the outcome of the consultation on the order. It states that all the “partner agencies” that were consulted replied in the affirmative to the three questions being asked, with the exception of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It seems that the APCC considered the order,

“disruptive to planning police resources”,

and felt that it posed an,

“increased risk of alcohol-related disorder”.

I have to say that its concerns are immediately swatted aside in the Explanatory Memorandum in one sentence:

“However, the Government is not aware of any evidence of alcohol-related disorder during periods covered by previous Licensing Hours Orders”.

It is interesting that there is no impact assessment to address this point and that related to police resources, among others. It is also interesting that the organisation whose concerns have been, frankly, so abruptly dismissed by the Government in the Explanatory Memorandum is the one that represents and speaks on behalf of the elected police and crime commissioners, whom the Government created to increase public accountability of the police and to ensure that, through them, public concerns could be reflected and addressed. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that, if the elected, accountable police and crime commissioners—who should know what the impact of the order may be in their own areas better than the Government—express concerns that are contrary to the Government’s stance, their concerns will carry little weight.

Perhaps the Minister could comment on that and, in the absence of an impact assessment, perhaps he could at least expand on the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum—which I quote again—that,

“the Government is not aware of any evidence of alcohol-related disorder during periods covered by previous Licensing Hours Orders”.

Does that sentence mean that in the additional hours covered by previous licensing hours orders there were no incidents at all throughout the country of alcohol-related disorder? If that is the case, frankly, that is unbelievable. Or is it meant to mean that the total number of incidents of alcohol-related disorder on the nights when there were extended hours under previous orders was no greater in total than the number of such incidents on a normal night without extended hours?

Banks: Fraud

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Countess. In addition to these initiatives, we also see that telephone companies are taking steps to cut down the time in which a phone line can remain open when a bank telephones a customer, because there are circumstances in which fraudsters will attempt to use that open time to perpetrate a fraud.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I am not sure that the Government’s response reflects the severity of the situation. After all, in 2015, financial fraud losses across payment cards, remote banking and cheques totalled, I think, some £755 million—an increase of 26% compared with the previous year. The ONS estimates that there have been 5.1 million incidents of online fraud in the last year. Why have the Government not even started, with the banking industry, to get a grip on this booming area of crime, which is adversely affecting so many people? If the noble and learned Lord believes the Government are taking action, when do the Government expect to see a downturn in such fraud?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. In 2015, 70% of fraud was stopped—70%. As regards the numbers, we have seen an increase in reported banking fraud, simply because this Government have instituted far better systems for identifying fraud and breaches of cybersecurity. With respect, it is not going up. The noble Lord observed that there was an increase in card fraud, but that is not the case. In fact, fraud in respect of credit cards reduced by 4% in the last reported years. Wider reporting of fraud is, as I say, a consequence of our having instituted far better systems for identifying breaches of cybersecurity. I simply remind the noble Lord that it is more than just the Joint Fraud Taskforce dealing with this. We have the national cybersecurity programme, a five-year strategy under which £90 million has already been expended on this; the National Cyber Security Centre; the Cyber Streetwise campaign for online security; Project Bloom for the task force on pension fraud; and the Insurance Fraud Taskforce. Indeed, the Chancellor has committed £1.9 billion to spend on cybersecurity.

Railways: Open Access Applications

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord, because open access has raised this very valid issue of the inequity of application of track fees and the associated costs. Notwithstanding the reports that have been done by, for example, the CMA, which highlighted the importance of competition, the Government’s position remains that we of course support competition but need to ensure equality of access, both for those operating the franchise and for those who come in through open access.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This Question refers to taking into account the interests of passengers and the Office of Rail and Road. At the end of last year, the consumer group Which? lodged a “super complaint” to the Office of Rail and Road, calling for major improvements to make it easier for passengers to claim refunds for delays and cancellations. The Office of Rail and Road called for an improvement in passenger compensation arrangements by this October, under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, this has now been delayed by the Government via a statutory instrument until October 2017. Can the Minister explain how delaying improved passenger compensation arrangements is an example of taking into account the interests of passengers?