Grand Committee
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is usual on these occasions, before we start proceedings, I must advise that if there is a Division in the House—I think it is unlikely—the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. The draft regulations have been approved in the other place and, if approved by this House after consideration by the Grand Committee, would come into effect at the end of February. The regulations clarify how local planning authorities should calculate the level of fees payable for proposals for oil and gas extraction.
The coalition Government believe that shale gas has the potential to provide the UK with greater energy security, growth and jobs. We are creating a framework that will accelerate shale gas in a responsible, safe and sustainable way. We have a robust regulatory regime in place, which is grounded in an effective, locally led planning system. That is why local authorities—county councils and unitary authorities in this case—have the responsibility for determining planning applications. They take decisions in accordance with local plans and the National Planning Policy Framework. I want to be clear that this amendment is intended to clarify only one particular point of law.
Departmental guidance going back to 1992 makes clear the Government’s long-standing intention that, for oil and gas applications, fees should be calculated on the basis of the area of the surface works. This is also a practice that has been employed by authorities for many years. Planning authorities have regarded the application boundary of a site by reference to the surface area and charged a fee accordingly. However, the fee regulations themselves refer to the,
“land to which the application relates”—
in other words, the extent of development, including underground works.
Until relatively recently, the tension between the regulations and the guidance has not been an issue in practice. Traditionally, onshore oil and gas development has involved vertical drilling. It is only with the advent of horizontal drilling, including the prospect of hydraulic fracturing of shale, that we have become aware of questions on this issue from the sector and local authorities in recent months. As paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum points out, there are instances in which this alternative interpretation has been adopted. The simple purpose of the regulations is to clarify the law beyond doubt. Therefore, Regulation 2 provides that a fee is not payable for any part of an oil and gas development that takes place underground if there is no oil and gas development on the surface directly above the operations.
We also recognise the confusion and uncertainty over how to interpret the term,
“land to which the application relates”,
when providing information on oil and gas applications, especially on how to show this on a map. Our national planning policy guidance, which will be published in due course, will address this. Applicants will be expected to indicate the horizontal extent of drilling, although this will not affect what they are charged. It is important to understand the likely extent of the proposed development. For example, planning authorities need to know to publicise the applications in relation to the larger area. It is also essential that the planning permission indicates where the underground development is allowed to take place. This is necessary to ensure effective monitoring and enforcement of planning conditions.
We are also taking this opportunity to increase the fees for applications for oil and gas development. As part of our consultation last year, the UK onshore oil and gas industry, which represents the majority of onshore operators, offered to increase the level of fees by 10%. It did so because it recognised that applications for oil and gas extraction, especially shale gas, may be subject to increased public scrutiny. Therefore Regulation 3 provides for application fees to rise by an above-average increase of 10% for all oil and gas applications. Let me be clear, however, that this is not a 10% increase across all categories of development. It affects only applications for oil and gas.
I should now like to address the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It expressed concern at the lack of time for effective scrutiny of these regulations, as well as the others that were introduced last month. There has been an exchange of correspondence between my department and the committee, and that has been published by the committee. As noble Lords will see from that document, it relates to both today’s regulations and another set of regulations, which are not before us today.
We fully recognise the importance of providing Parliament with sufficient time to scrutinise statutory instruments. We were working to issue the supporting material—the impact assessment and the summary of consultation responses—alongside the statutory instrument before Christmas. However, there was a longer delay than we anticipated in doing so. I am sorry that the scrutiny committee was inconvenienced in this way. It was never our intention to impact on Parliament's consideration of these instruments. However, I am grateful that it was still able to consider the statutory instruments last month.
The scrutiny committee also expressed concern that the department had not systematically evaluated the financial impact on the public sector of the new arrangements. This is even though we acknowledge that applications might be subject to increased public scrutiny, and so the costs to planning authorities of handling them might increase.
The level of fees is not set by examining the cost of processing each type of development in isolation. The fee is based on the average cost of determination across all local authorities in England. These regulations will affect an average of 32 applications per year. That is 32 out of more than 450,000 received by planning authorities in England each year. It is wholly disproportionate to carry out a detailed financial analysis in such circumstances.
We set out our assessment of the changes to these regulations in the impact assessment for the other statutory instrument. Fees are outside the scope of the Government's “one in, two out” procedure for better regulation. However, that does not mean that we do not take seriously the impact on planning authorities that have to handle such applications. We have concluded that there will be a small positive impact. This is based on the Government's intention for how fees should be calculated, as well as the past practice employed by many planning authorities. We must also not forget that planning fees for oil and gas development are already higher than the average fee.
The scrutiny committee also asked why the Government are keen to progress with these changes when there is such a degree of opposition, and after what it perceived as a relatively short period of consultation. I can assure noble Lords that we carefully considered the nature and impact of these proposals when considering the length of time for consultation on the draft regulations. Our consultation period was in line with the revised Cabinet Office consultation principles, which we support and follow. We also carefully considered the responses before pressing ahead with our proposals. Of course, these proposals do not just cover shale, they also cover other oil and gas extraction.
While some local planning authorities might not welcome this proposal, since it could deprive them of an opportunity to raise more income through the planning system, the point is that the statutory planning functions are not just financed through the fees which are set; they are also subsidised by government grant and local raised revenue.
It is important for me to stress that these regulations simply clarify the Government’s long-standing intentions by seeking to clarify the level of fees for onshore oil and gas operators. They will provide clarity for investors, local authorities and local communities alike, and the modest fee increase we have set will help planning authorities to meet the costs of these applications. We have responded to the committee, and our response and the committee’s letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have been published and are available. I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As noble Lords have already heard, the committee has had considerable reservations about the way in which these regulations have been processed. During my public service career I have generally taken the view that when things go wrong it is the result of incompetence rather than malign conspiracy, but I have to say that the way in which this has been handled may cause me to revisit my position.
Let us revisit the facts from a slightly different perspective from the one we have already heard. The original consultation took place in September and October and allowed just six weeks for responses. The Government’s own new consultation principles, which were published in July 2012 and have not been without controversy, provide:
“For a new and contentious policy”—
such as a new policy on nuclear energy—
“12 weeks or more may still be appropriate”.
As the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, streamlining procedures in relation to fracking might very well be seen as a new and contentious policy. Given that the Government allowed only six weeks for this consultation, it is hard to imagine what policy considerations might lead them to allow 12 weeks or longer for other consultations.
Let us carry on with the story. The regulations were laid on 20 December last year; that is, during the parliamentary Recess and a day or two before most of us were involved in other festivities. They were brought into force on 13 January this year, just one week after the end of the Recess. As the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, pointed out in a letter to the Minister, Mr Nick Boles, clearly this gave,
“scant opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the instrument before it took effect”,
which, given that this is a controversial issue, was especially “regrettable”. The fact that it applies to only a small number of planning applications each year does not change the fact that this is a controversial issue.
To make things worse, as the Minister herself has said, the department failed to publish a detailed analysis of the consultation responses or any impact assessment when the instruments were ultimately laid. Therefore, such scrutiny as Parliament was able to provide was not informed by this important material. The committee pressed for this but it was not provided until 24 January, a full month after the instruments were laid. It showed that only seven of the responses were in favour of the Government’s proposed changes and 155 were against. I am not making points about the content of the regulations—others may want to—but it is right that Parliament should know the outcome of the consultation when the instruments were laid.
When these concerns were put to the Minister, Mr Boles, by the chairman of the committee, the response was close to dismissive. The department does, it seems, support and adhere to the revised Cabinet Office guidelines but, on the advice of its own deregulation unit, felt that the six weeks allowed in this case was proportionate. As for laying the instruments just before Christmas and without the necessary supporting material, we were to be reassured that there was no intent to impact on Parliament’s consideration of them.
I think that the way in which this has been managed is regrettable. It has shown scant respect for Parliament and scant respect for effective consultation, which is an important cornerstone of our democratic system. I hope that the Minister, in addition to the assurances that she has already given us, will be able to offer some greater reassurance than did Mr Boles that this sort of thing will not be allowed to happen again. There may not be many people here to hear this debate today, but these issues go to the heart of our constitutional process.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, there are not many people here, but this issue is incredibly topical, particularly given that Cuadrilla announced last week that it intends to apply for planning permission for two new sites in Lancashire for fracking. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered this statutory instrument alongside another one, which would amend the requirements for applicants to notify owners and tenants of land individually of applications for such development. I shall not repeat the apposite and pertinent comments that the noble Lord has made—I echo them entirely—but shall pick up on one of them and make one further, final remark.
As he said, the Government failed to publish a detailed analysis of the consultation when they laid these instruments before Parliament. That reluctance is probably understandable when we look in detail at that analysis. As the noble Lord said, only seven of those responses were in favour, with 155 against. That is really important, and not just in terms of how we take forward the issue of fracking; it is about how we have a process for planning that involves the local community. The broader principles of what planning is for were debated at length by many of us in this House in the context of the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework. It is to be deeply regretted that the views then expressed about what the purpose of the planning system should be—it is about balancing the competing demands to achieve truly sustainable development for our country—appear not to have been heeded.
I am particularly grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for highlighting the shortcomings in the Government’s procedure on this matter. It highlighted to those of us in this House who care deeply about ensuring that we have a fair planning process that we will have to watch developments even more closely in future. Again, this is particularly topical, given that it is likely that there will be announcements in Europe this month about the future of GM crops. It will be interesting to note what the department might be planning for in terms of applications in that new area of development.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As we have heard, they are concerned with planning arrangements for onshore operations for the winning and working of oil or natural gas, including exploration drilling. Onshore oil and gas activities are of course not new to the UK, but the more recent development of hydraulic fracturing or fracking is contentious and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, certainly topical.
The Government sought to address the regulatory regime for onshore oil and gas in the publication of planning practice guidance in 2013. At that time, they indicated that proposals would be brought forward to address issues relating to the application process and the level of fees payable to local planning authorities.
The first of these was the subject of a negative instrument that was slipped through Parliament over the Christmas period, giving, as we have heard, scant opportunity for debate; the second is the one that is before us today. So far as process is concerned, the department has been justifiably criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for laying these instruments without proper impact assessments and a proper analysis of the related consultation exercise, which itself attracted criticism for being over just a six-week period. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, thoroughly expressed the concerns of that committee. Indeed, we share those concerns. Why does the department continue to get these matters so horribly wrong, showing scant respect for Parliament, as the noble Lord said? This is probably not the occasion to enter into a full-scale debate about future energy policy and energy security, but we are clear that gas has a role to play in the future balanced energy mix, along with renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. Within that, there is a prospect for shale gas, but with a precautionary approach that needs to address legitimate environmental concerns.
The instrument before us today, which came into effect in January, represents easements for the extraction industry, although perhaps modest ones. These appear to go against the grain of the September 2013 consultation exercise, although the Government’s response does not provide us with details, numbers or percentages of those supporting or opposing the three broad propositions that were canvassed, including the third one, which is the standard application form. Please can these be provided to us?
Specifically, this instrument addresses how planning fees are calculated when there are drilling activities both above and below ground. This is pertinent because activity below the surface will take place horizontally as well as vertically, thereby spreading out much wider than the surface area. It is asserted that the basis of fees for oil and gas applications has long been intended to be related to the area of the surface works only, and that what is before us is a clarification to achieve that objective. That clarification comes with a general 10% fee uplift for all oil and gas applications, which was apparently offered by the offshore industry. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the basis of that calculation and how it relates to the costs that local planning authorities are likely to incur in dealing with applications. Was 10% the industry’s first offer, and what was the range of the negotiations that might have ensued?
The Minister in another place suggested that statutory planning functions are financed from a combination of fees, government grant and locally raised revenue. Indeed, the Minister reiterated that this afternoon. Perhaps she can advise us as to what grants are involved and the future trajectory of grant levels. The Minister in the other place told the Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee:
“Statutory planning functions are not only financed through the fees set, but subsidised by Government grant and locally raised revenue. Our approach to setting fees in England is that they are set nationally and grouped into broad categories such as housing, business and commercial, and onshore oil and gas, approximating to the amount of work involved. The fee is based on the average cost of determination across all local authorities in England. The principle underlying the planning fee regime is that would-be applicants should meet the majority of the costs incurred by planning authorities in determining planning applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 5/2/14; cols. 3-4.]
Given the relatively small number of mineral planning authorities it is estimated might be involved in fracking applications, what work has been done to evaluate whether the average for oil and gas applications is appropriate?
The Explanatory Note sets out the government view that planning authorities should concentrate mainly—not exclusively—on the surface impacts of onshore oil and gas development and rely more on the regulatory regimes to manage sub-surface issues. Can the Minister give us some information on the necessary involvement of planning authorities in the non-surface impacts and on how this differs between applications involving hydraulic fracturing and those involving other onshore oil and gas applications, whether concerning exploration, appraisal or production?
Thus far the Government have not been convincing on how they have brought forward these proposals or how they have arrived at the new fee levels. Of course, there are much bigger issues around energy policy, hydraulic fracturing and how communities should be involved and share in the benefits of other developments, but consideration of these matters is not helped when relatively small issues such as this are not dealt with effectively and openly.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, acknowledged, these regulations are not about energy policy or the planning process more widely. However, important issues have been raised by noble Lords which I shall seek to clarify and respond to. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, echoed some of the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I very much regret—my colleagues in the department share my view—that that committee felt moved to comment on the process that we followed in bringing forward these regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we recognise the importance of providing Parliament with sufficient time and evidence to scrutinise the documentation and the responses to the consultation. In laying the material before Christmas, we did not expect the significant delay that then transpired between that happening and the consultation responses being provided. I assure noble Lords that there is no conspiracy here but I very much take on board the criticism and will reflect on it for the future.
The noble Lord’s remarks on the length of the consultation exercise and the consideration of responses to it were echoed by my noble friend Lady Parminter and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. It is important for me to stress again that these regulations are very narrow in their purpose. They clarify the existing law and ensure that the Government’s long-standing intention is clear. The other regulations, which are not before us today but were referred to in the scrutiny committee’s report, are important as far as a change around notification is concerned. Those regulations focus very narrowly on notification prior to an application being made by a relevant organisation and certainly do not affect the ongoing process of consultation, which is very important to the process that will be followed if exploration is continued. Therefore, we thought it right to follow the principles set out in the Cabinet Office code, and we felt that six weeks was an appropriate and proportionate amount of time for the consultation period.
As regards analysing the responses, we considered them very carefully but, not surprisingly, because shale gas is a contentious matter, many of those who responded to the consultation, and certainly those who opposed these regulations, used it—this is perfectly understandable and I am certainly not criticising anyone for doing this—to express their opposition in principle to shale. Once the responses were carefully analysed, the number of those who opposed the regulations were opposed less to what was being proposed in the regulations than to the principle of shale itself. They were therefore addressing a different matter in their responses. We have published the consultation responses, albeit belatedly. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked for further detail on this, and our analysis of the consultation is already available in the public domain.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I may deal with this point before it slips my memory. As I understand it, the fees relate to the averages of different categories, of which oil and gas is one category. My question was whether the average in respect of oil and gas is fairly representative when you have an oil and gas operation that involves fracking; that is, whether the nature of that operation means that the average for that subset of what is happening across England is fair and reasonable.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am sure that my colleagues will confirm if I am wrong, but I would say that it is. This is about being clear that the fee is for the planning application and that that application, even if it is for shale or other forms of oil and gas, should apply in the same way. The relevant area is the surface area, so the process of determining the fee is the same; the fee is for the planning process rather than for carrying out the work that will take place. However, I gather that it is difficult to assess the averages of such applications, given the small number of applications so far.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the 10% offer from the oil industry in terms of an increase in fees. This proposal came from the industry in response to the consultation exercise. It was not something on which the Government entered into negotiation with the industry. The noble Lord also asked about the role of planning authorities in surface and non-surface input and applications. The planning practice guidance published in July provides clarity on the role of the planning system and other regulatory regimes. The planning role is largely focused on surface impact, while the sub-surface matters are largely assessed by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and DECC.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I promise not to interrupt again. The Explanatory Note makes reference to surface impact being mainly involved, but opens up the possibility that it is not exclusively surface impact. I am trying to understand, having looked at the guidance, what specifically might be involved in other aspects of the process.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Does the noble Lord mean in terms of the planning application fee?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
In terms of what is involved in dealing with a planning application.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will see if something further comes for me on that while I am on my feet, but I may have to follow it up in writing to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked—this may also answer the point he has just raised—whether the planning fees should cover wider issues than processing an application. The planning legislation is clear that fees may be payable to the planning authority for considering an application; their use for any other purpose would not be possible. Other regulations already exist to ensure that the operator is liable for any damage or pollution that operations may cause. The operator is also responsible for safe abandonment of the wells and for restoring the well site to its previous state, or a suitable condition for reuse. If that is where the noble Lord was coming from, my point is that if there were other costs involved, they are already covered by other regulations. As I do not seem to be receiving any signal that I will be able to answer the noble Lord’s question while I am on my feet, I hope that he will accept my offer of following that up in writing.
In conclusion, I stress again that I hear loudly and clearly the concerns that have been expressed by the scrutiny committee, which have been echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others today. However, I emphasise again that these regulations clarify a point of law so that the Government’s long-standing policy intention is clear. They are nothing more substantial than that in terms of the contentious but important issue of shale exploration. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have answered all their points.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014. With the Committee’s permission, I will refer to them as the regulated activities amendment order and the designated activities order.
A well functioning consumer credit market is vital to the economy and to society. However, the market is not functioning as it should and consumers are not being properly protected. The current licensing regime run by the Office of Fair Trading and established under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 lacks the capacity and powers comprehensively to tackle consumer detriment. It cannot keep pace with this fast-innovating market. That is why we are moving the regulation of consumer credit to the Financial Conduct Authority from this April. We will make sure that the regime is proportionate and supports a sustainable and competitive credit market. The Government laid statutory instruments last summer to provide the framework for this regulatory transfer. However, there remain a small number of largely technical issues to address to ensure that the transfer runs smoothly and is proportionate for business. I shall set out how the statutory instruments we are considering today will address these outstanding issues.
The regulated activities amendment order addresses the following principal points. As regards local authorities’ credit activities, they are not required to hold a consumer credit licence under the current regime. The Government set out in their March 2013 consultation their intention to preserve this status quo. Local authorities will need to be FCA-authorised only where this is necessary for compliance with the consumer credit directive. This will minimise burdens on local authorities and avoid gold-plating. To further minimise burdens on local authorities, the instrument provides that those which require authorisation should be eligible for the FCA’s limited permission regime, where costs and regulatory burdens will be lower.
As regards the provision relating to the retained Consumer Credit Act provisions, the Financial Services and Markets Act, on which the new consumer credit regime is based, provides for a rule-based approach to allow more flexible and responsive regulation of this market. The Government have already repealed many provisions in the Consumer Credit Act and associated secondary legislation so that they can be replicated in FCA rules. However, the Government decided to carry forward a number of important consumer rights and protections from the CCA where they cannot be replicated easily under the Financial Services and Markets Act.
In the longer term, however, the Government are confident that many of these provisions can be replaced by rules-based consumer protections. This instrument therefore places a requirement on the FCA to review retained CCA provisions by 2019. It will recommend to government which remaining such provisions can be repealed and replaced with FCA rules, taking into account the implications for consumer protection and burdens for firms. The FCA will report to the Treasury, but the order requires the Treasury to lay a copy of the report before Parliament. This review was proposed in the Government’s March 2013 consultation and was well received by respondents from both industry and consumer groups. Ultimately it will help to ensure that the consumer credit regime is based on the powers and requirements set out in FiSMA, unifying the basis for conduct regulation of financial services in the UK.
The order also makes provisions relating to peer-to-peer lending. The Government are keen for regulation of this sector to balance the protection of consumer borrowing and lending through the platforms with a proportionate regime that can support the growth of the sector.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to both orders. The first takes up little more than a page, while the Explanatory Memorandum attached to it takes up 49 pages. The second order takes up 30 pages and the Explanatory Memorandum for that also takes up 49 pages, but is essentially the same text as the first one. That is not a complaint: the Explanatory Memorandum is a model of its kind—it is clear, thorough and indicates clearly areas of doubt or uncertainty.
There is one area of doubt or uncertainty arising: the effect on SMEs—not as providers of credit but as customers of credit providers. The impact assessment estimates the cost of the measures over 10 years at £336 billion and the benefit at £689 million—an estimated net benefit of £353 billion. However, the impact assessment does not say how this net benefit is distributed. That is my first question: are SMEs net beneficiaries or is all the benefit delivered elsewhere?
The impact assessment also makes it clear that it expects a shrinking of the credit market. It estimates that 9,000, or 20%, of credit organisations will exit the market. It is true that these organisations represent only a small percentage by volume of total credit, but is this lost lending concentrated in the SME sector? That is my second question to the Minister. We know that net lending to SMEs continues to decline. Can the Minister provide some general reassurance that the measures before us will not make the position worse?
The note in paragraph 53 on page 13 of the impact assessment makes the point that the FCA’s most effective regulatory tools and framework to be brought about by these orders will be,
“effective in tackling known consumer detriment occurring in the non-mainstream lending market such as: payday loans, credit brokerage, debt management and home collected credit”.
That is an important improvement and I welcome it, especially as it will apply to payday loans. However, at first reading there seem to be some areas missing from the list. The impact assessment notes in paragraph 25 on page 8, as a rationale for intervention,
“that the market is not functioning as well as it should and the regulatory regime cannot keep pace with the market”.
However, as far as I can detect, no explicit mention is made anywhere in the orders or the Explanatory Memorandums of crowdfunding or peer-to-peer lending. As the Minister knows, these are rapidly growing credit areas, and ones that offer additional opportunities for SME funding. Can the Minister confirm for the Committee that crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending will fall within the ambit of these orders? I think I heard the Minister say that that is the case for peer-to-peer lending, but I should like to know whether it is also the case for crowdfunding.
Before I conclude, I should like to ask the Minister a little more about the effects of these orders on payday lenders. The Minister has previously confirmed elsewhere that under the terms of the EU e-commerce directive, the UK has no power to cap the cost of payday loans extended by companies based in the EEA and trading only electronically in the UK. However, I notice in paragraph (5)(e) on page 16 of the second order that the authority has the power to prohibit the entry into credit agreements by an EEA authorised payment institution if that institution,
“engages in business practices appearing to the Authority to be deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (including practices that appear to the Authority to involve irresponsible lending)”.
Does this provision apply to payday lenders based in the EEA and operating only electronically here in the UK?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome these two orders. It is the duty of Her Majesty’s Opposition to study secondary legislation and then to oppose it where we find errors and faults, but I have to say that I have not been as successful as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in finding questions to pose to the Minister, so at least my words will give him a little time to collect together his notes on those technical areas. While we welcome the orders, my honourable friend in another place did ask one or two questions which seemed to be answered satisfactorily. As far as I can tell, the orders do their job. With the permission of the Committee, I should like in a sense to celebrate these orders because they represent the last hurdles of effecting the transfer of responsibilities for consumer credit from the OFT to the FCA. Over the past many months, we have all been concerned about the consumer credit market, in particular its grey areas and payday lending.
I, too, have studied all 49 pages of the impact assessment, although I did not find the same inconsistencies as the noble Lord. I did pick up an implication that the resources to be devoted to the area seem to be tripling from around £10 million per annum to £30 million, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the extent to which new resources are being made available for this new activity. What does this represent in terms of resources and people at the FCA devoted to the consumer credit market? Will it involve the transfer of people from the OFT? Will it involve new and perhaps more capable people working in this market? Will there be a change in attitude and culture on the part of those working in this area?
As has been pointed out, there are some detailed areas, but the really serious evil here is the loan sharks, the rogue lenders and the payday loans market. That market is pretty worrying at every level, from the one-person operator through to major organisations. It involves probably some of the most vulnerable consumers in the land, who are people making decisions in very difficult and stressful circumstances. If ever a market needed intelligent, proactive government regulation, it is this one, and I hope that what the Government have designed will do it.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say a few words about how the regulators will be more proactive. The documentation makes the point that the FCA can be forward-looking and create regulations quickly. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on that and give me some reassurance—in response to a point made by a colleague—that the new unit will be able to strangle products at birth; in other words, will be sufficiently proactive to sweep the market for the emergence of new products and move quickly to kill them before they do the social harm that we know they can do.
One of the aspirations of these changes is to bring rogue firms under control, which I think we all welcome. The problem is that it might increase opportunities for illegal operations. I feel as though I am in a pantomime now and saying, “Look behind you”, because notes are at the Minister’s right hand. To what extent will the unit work with the police where it sees the early emergence of illegal operations and stamp them out before they can create the evil which we know happens in communities under stress?
Lord Newby
I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. Even by the standards of statutory instruments, these are extremely opaque, but the powers they contain are important and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, tidy up and, one hopes, finalise the secondary legislation that is needed to effect their transfer.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked a number of questions about the extent to which SMEs could be adversely affected by the regulations. While there may be some impact on lending to SMEs by some non-bank lenders, we would expect it to be extremely small. The stock of lending to business that is consumer credit is estimated to be, at most, 5% of total lending to SMEs. If we are talking about a small proportion of that 5% disappearing, it is a very small impact. We believe that the Government’s wider initiatives, such as the Funding for Lending scheme, will over time far outweigh the negative impact of the transfer. It is worth bearing in mind that SMEs, like any other consumers, can enter into credit agreements that may drive them into unsustainable levels of debt. The enhanced consumer protection that we hope and expect will flow from this transfer will benefit SME debtors.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or a stateless person, known as the Dublin III arrangements. Under these arrangements, the United Kingdom can apply for another member state to consider an asylum application, and provide appropriate protection if that application is successful, where an individual’s first point of entry to the European Union is that other member state but an application for asylum is made in the United Kingdom.
Under these arrangements, a member state is required, if the financial means of the individual and merits of the case justify it, to provide free legal assistance and representation in relation to an appeal or review of certain decisions made under Dublin III. The Dublin III arrangements replace those set out in Council Regulations (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, known as Dublin II. We have in this country routinely provided legal aid in relation to Dublin II matters.
The key difference between the old and the new arrangements, from the Ministry of Justice’s perspective, is that the requirement to provide free legal assistance for certain appeals, which in the UK is met through judicial review, is made explicit. The explicit provision in Dublin III for legal aid also prescribes a merits test, particular to it, that is to be applied. These regulations amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 to give effect to the particular merits test. The merits criteria are tests which the Director of Legal Aid Casework must apply in deciding whether an individual qualifies for civil legal services.
The amendment before us today allows for the merits test set out in Dublin III to apply—namely that the prospects of success of an individual case must be judged to be greater than,
“no tangible prospect of success”.
The instrument therefore makes provision to ensure that we meet our international obligations but changes nothing else. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Justice laid an urgency statement alongside this instrument, in order that it could come into force without delay, as per the procedures set out in Section 41(9) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Due to an administrative oversight, my officials at the Ministry of Justice failed to recognise that there was a subtle difference between the merits test prescribed in Dublin III and the existing tests more generally applied to applications for judicial review. In the case of judicial review, the prospects of success must be at least moderate. By the time this oversight was recognised, insufficient time remained to make the necessary changes via the standard draft affirmative procedure. The urgency procedure was used to ensure that the appropriate test applied from the point when the Dublin III arrangements came into effect, on 1 January this year. This means that there was no risk of an individual being unfairly disadvantaged by having the incorrect test applied to their application for legal aid, hence the urgency. I hope that my explanation has been of assistance to noble Lords. I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this is a rare opportunity for me to congratulate the Government on breaking the habits of this Parliament’s lifetime on access to legal aid. It is only 12 days since we had a debate about prison law and entered into a discussion about borderline cases for legal aid, when the noble Lord was vigorously supported by precisely no members of the Government—nor, indeed, anybody else—in a debate in which 15 Members were exercised about the restrictions on legal aid and the merits criteria under which these decisions will be taken.
However, on this occasion, the Government have not only done better than that, they have also refrained from stigmatising European legislation as an outrage to our constitution which should not be implemented if at all possible. For that small mercy, I am sure that we are grateful. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to convey to his Secretary of State the fact that a move towards something less stringent than the previous formulation about “no tangible prospect of success”, which is effectively what we are ending up with in other areas, would also be better applied to the remaining legal aid jurisdiction and not just that which is invoked by the European treaty and Dublin III. Having said that, we very much welcome the regulations.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, congratulations being in short supply in the context of legal aid, I gratefully accept them from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I will pass on his comments on the lack of stigmatisation of European legislation and his suggestion to amend the merits test. I am sure that the Secretary of State will read carefully his comments in Hansard.
There is little more for me to add, except that this should enable no injustice to be done. Legal aid should be available. The urgency, while regrettable, has been explained to the Committee. In those circumstances, I commend this instrument.
Tribunal Security Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this is a perfectly sensible change to the rules to provide for security on tribunal premises. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer the one or two questions I have immediately, but it would be interesting to know whether there is a record of any significant incidents in which the presence of a security officer with these powers would have made a difference. It would be interesting to know how many problems have arisen or are arising, and how that compares with the other courts. That said, it is clearly sensible to have these provisions. However, can the Minister say how the Government intend to proceed in terms of the employment of such staff? Will they be seeking to contract this operation out, like so much else of the administration of justice, to contractors such as G4S and Serco? Or will it be done, as it were, in-house?
Secondly, will they, in any event, ensure that staff employed on this important task are paid at least a living wage? I fear that people may be employed on part-time, minimum-wage conditions. Given the nature of the job, that would be entirely unjustified. It would be helpful to know, if not now then subsequently, what the Government’s attitude would be, whether it is providing the services directly or contracting them out. Subject to these observations, I very much endorse the regulations.
Lord Faulks
Contrary to his expectation, I think I can answer some of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
In the reporting period from April 2013 to 31 December 2013, a total of 75 security incidents were reported from tribunal venues and hearing centres. Those incidents are classified in a number of ways. Examples include verbal abuse, verbal threats and unauthorised access through to security systems or loss of ID. I do not have any further breakdown, but I hope that gives the noble Lord at least some idea of the scale. I also do not have information comparing that with security incidents at courts, but it can be seen that it is a substantial potential threat, and the noble Lord has been good enough to acknowledge that it is appropriate to make this change. Of course, it was not possible under the 2003 Act until the Tribunals Service was brought within the overall control of the Courts Service.
I turn to the questions around employment. Important pre-employment checks will be made on contractors—and there will be independent contractors—to assess their suitability to work within the organisation. I am instructed that the guards will be provided by G4S and Mitie. Some tribunal venues and hearing centres are covered by the PRIME contract. The contract has input from the Department for Work and Pensions and is managed by a private organisation, Telereal Trillium. The guards will be supplied to these sites by G4S or Mitie depending on their geographical location, and the template seen across the court sites will be used to manage security within tribunal venues and hearing centres.
As part of the employment process, the relevant contractor will undertake pre-employment checks to assess applicants’ suitability to work within their organisation, including obtaining references, interviews and so on. Before designation—the word apparently used in this context—HMCTS undertakes further suitability checks to confirm the identity of the individual. Checks are made of disclosure and barring service certificates, and an assessment is made of the appropriate level of training required. The assessment of this suitability is part of the designation process, with assurances going to the Lord Chancellor. As part of the application process, all potential designates must hold a current Security Industry Authority licence and have completed training on conflict management and physical intervention. There is also continuing monitoring of employees’ ability, but I will not provide all the details now.
I noticed that the noble Lord’s eyebrows were raised slightly by the reference to G4S. He may be thinking back to the question of electronic monitoring and tagging. The tagging contract is not linked to the provision of security on court sites; rather, it is managed by a separate department within G4S. I hope that that provides some assurance for the noble Lord.
Lord Beecham
Will the noble Lord respond to the questions about the conditions of the staff in terms of earnings, zero hour contracts and so on?
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me about the question of the living wage. I do not have any details on the precise wages, but I will write to him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is not quorate at the moment so I suggest that it adjourns for a few minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the Grand Committee is now quorate.
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 15 January. I am satisfied that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Our task today is to consider the automatic enrolment figures that will set minimum savings levels from this April. The automatic enrolment earnings trigger sets the automatic entry point to determine who saves in a workplace pension. The qualifying earnings band then determines how much people save and sets employer minimum contribution levels.
This debate is now an annual fixture on our calendar—automatic enrolment is business as usual in so many respects. There is much on which we agree and we share common ground on the principles of automatic enrolment. The aim of automatic enrolment is to broaden access to workplace pensions and increase savings levels. In the end everybody should be able to say, “I’m in”, because saving is the norm. We can see from early opt-out figures that the trend is to stay in. That is enormously encouraging.
First and foremost, automatic enrolment needs to target those workers who are not saving but should be. To do this, it needs to exclude those very low earners for whom saving on top of the pension that they will get from the state may not make economic sense, especially while they have other priorities. It also needs to provide low earners with access to pension saving—with an employer contribution—if saving is the right decision for them.
This year there is a new element in the mix. This will be the significant year when automatic enrolment moves to the SME—small and medium-sized enterprise—sector. We will bring companies employing between 250 and 50 people on board. Some of these employers will be putting a pension scheme in place for the first time. Many of their workers will be new to pension saving. We need to be realistic about automatic enrolment costs. Although some workers will have personal pensions, many will not have had access to an employer’s scheme and will see a new deduction from their pay for the first time. Affordability is very important.
Parliament has already made some arrangements to address this issue. Minimum contribution levels are being phased in to get non-savers and employers who are new to pension schemes starting slowly. The absolute minimum is 1% from both workers and employers for the first five years. Some schemes will require more, but the 1% matched is the absolute minimum. This soft landing will help to mainstream automatic enrolment.
However, we still have a balancing act when it comes to the annual thresholds. Automatic enrolment is a tailored policy. It does not force pension saving on to everyone regardless of earnings. Our overall aim in setting the figures in this instrument is to maximise the number of people saving who can afford it, while excluding those who cannot. It also needs to cap minimum employer contributions for higher-paid staff and let existing arrangements cater for this market.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak on the earnings trigger in particular. I offer my apologies to the Committee: this item of business was not published and I have been sitting in a finance sub-committee taking evidence from Her Majesty’s Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which was quite compelling. I therefore ask your Lordships to accept my apologies for being a few minutes late.
I rise to speak on this statutory instrument because we see another year and another increase in the earnings trigger for automatic enrolment and another several thousand more women being disadvantaged and excluded from the UK pension system. I shall persist with this issue year after year because I fear that we are taking what started as a well designed private pension system, certainly in intent, and trying to make it an increasingly part-time-women-free area.
In 2011-12, 600,000 individuals, 78% of them women, were excluded from automatic enrolment. In 2012-13, the Government excluded another 100,000 people, 82% of them of women, by virtue of raising the earnings trigger. In 2013-14, another 420,000 people were excluded, 72% of them women, and now, for 2014-15, by increasing the trigger to £10,000, another 170,000 people will be excluded, 69% of them women. It reads as a rather depressing roll-call. The culling of women from the UK private pension system has almost become the Government’s annual sport.
I find it quite extraordinary that the coalition Government are so determined to carve out so many women from the UK private pension system. If women and men who earn below £10,000 are not automatically enrolled and do not, because of inertia, voluntarily opt in to their employer’s workplace scheme, many of them will experience several disadvantages. When automatic enrolment is phased in to their employer, they will not be in the pension scheme. Those excluded—mostly women—will suffer a loss in lifetime pay, albeit deferred pay, because they do not have access to the employer’s 3%—for some, where the employer contribution is above 3%, the loss is even greater. However, they will still lose out from any reduction in wage levels that flows from the cost to the employer of automatic enrolment.
When they move from a full-time job with one employer to a part-time job with another, they may not join the new employer’s scheme and are therefore at risk, first, of becoming an inactive member and subject to inactive member charge premiums on their existing pension pot unless the Government ban active member discounts—whether they will do that is a big question. Secondly, they are at risk of being defaulted into a personal pension by their previous employer, who does not allow ex-employees to stay in their workplace scheme. Therefore they leave an employer and are full-time, and then as a part-time employee they are not covered by auto-enrolment. Their accrued pot is vulnerable to higher charges and would not be protected by a pot-follows-member or any other aggregation mechanism.
As I said, they would not benefit from any aggregation mechanism, so they are not in their new employer’s scheme. They are not an active member, so their previous pension pot will flounder. When I raised this point in Committee the last time we discussed the increase in the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment, it was before we had the detail of pot follows member. The Minister, Lord Freud, commented:
“I will stand my ground a little bit on this, because these are some of the issues that really come into consideration when we look at the broader issue of pension pots”.—[Official Report, 22/5/12; col. GC 20.]
However, we now know that pot follows member will apply only where an individual is an active member of their employer’s scheme. Therefore, if these women are not automatically enrolled and inertia keeps them out of their scheme, they are unprotected; they are not protected by pot follows member. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, may have stood his ground then, but I am afraid that, now that we know the details of pot follows member, that ground has now moved from beneath him. Those women’s pots will just flounder without protection.
If part-time workers earning below £10,000 are not persistent low earners over their lifetime, which many will not be—a point confirmed in the Johnson review commissioned by the Government—and are not automatically enrolled into their employer’s pension scheme when they are on the lower earnings, the persistency of the savings habit that they built up will be broken and the accumulated value of their pension pot over their lifetime of pension saving will be reduced. Given the advent of the single-tier pension, which will be set at a level only slightly above pension credit but which will be based on national insurance record and crediting and not means-testing, the fact that low-paid workers are not automatically enrolled into their employer’s pension scheme means that they will simply be denied the opportunity to accrue even a modest amount of capital. That is yet another example of the awful attitude that says that public policy does not need to assist low-paid workers to accumulate capital or assets.
The reasons why the earnings trigger should not be raised any further are absolutely clear. Not all those earning below the earnings trigger of £10,000 are persistent low earners. Low earners should be able to accumulate savings over and above the single-tier pension, and the trivial commutation rules will allow most of them to take it in cash. This disproportionately affects women and breaches a basic principle that, in designing state and private pension systems, both systems should work for women, yet each time this earnings trigger is raised we carve out or cull thousands of women from the UK private pensions system.
Let us look in detail at some of the Government’s arguments—their preoccupation with the low earners. Almost half of those in the lowest-earning group are in couples where one works part-time and the other full-time. Most very low earners are women who live in households with others on higher earnings and they are receiving working tax credits. These are precisely the people who should be automatically enrolled in saving, yet we have seen persistently a rising earnings trigger that excludes them. Furthermore, the value of the loss of the employer’s contribution of 3% of qualifying earnings from raising the earnings trigger and not being auto-enrolled is greater than the tax reduction that they get from increasing the tax threshold. The combination of the two therefore means that the lowest earners could be worse off. They lose more from not being auto-enrolled than they gain from the increase in the tax thresholds.
Earnings are not static for many workers, either men or women. They can change significantly over a lifetime. Most low earners go on to earn more, so saving would still be beneficial because of the continuing contribution to their pensions over their working lives. Millions of women have a life pattern in which periods of full-time work are interspersed with significant periods of part-time work when caring responsibilities are at their greatest. Part-time working is part of the systemic solution to childcare in this country. When we look at the labour market statistics, we see that we respond by saying, “We are not going to auto-enrol you into your employer’s pension scheme when you are working part-time for periods of childcare or other forms of care”.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Secretary of State has concluded that it is appropriate to enrol people automatically into workplace pension saving once they earn enough to pay income tax”.
However, this disregards how working-age benefits can make it pay to save. The 100% disregard of individuals’ pension contributions from income brought to account when calculating entitlement to universal credit has been maintained thanks to the intervention of the Minister and the consequence is that it provides a positive incentive to save for many low-paid people. However, what are we doing? We are excluding them from the benefits of auto-enrolment by raising the earnings trigger.
As to persistent low earners, because within that population there will be some, the argument that they should not save because they get state pension and benefits means that yet again there will be no asset accumulation strategy for them. That position is even more indefensible with the advent of the single tier because it is not means-tested, so there is no means-tested track against the single tier that they can genuinely build up, even by only a modest amount of capital, by being auto-enrolled, that will not be lost on the means-tested basis against that single tier.
On my approximate estimates, increasing the earnings trigger to £10,000 from its original level has excluded 1,290,000 individuals per year from workplace pensions, 75% of whom would be women, at a loss to those individuals of approximately £40 million of employer pension contributions. But the cumulative total of those impacted, because different individuals are impacted year on year, will be much higher. This suggests that the group targeted to benefit from workplace pension reform will comprise approximately 65% men and only 35% women.
I come back to my basic point. We are increasingly designing, or “undesigning”, a private pension scheme to exclude ever greater numbers of women every time the earnings trigger is raised. It is simply not a credible argument to say that the impact of the earnings trigger can be mitigated by those earning below the £10,000 threshold being allowed to opt in voluntarily. Inertia prevents people from saving, and that is the whole point of auto-enrolment. You cannot say, “Because the rest of the population will not save we have to have auto-enrolment, but the very low earners can opt in”. It is an absolute nonsense. Low earners are not exempt from the maxim that inertia stops people saving, which is why you need auto-enrolment. As I said, a key principle of pension reform is to enable women to build up a pension in their own right. The higher the earnings threshold for auto-enrolment, the less the reforms will work for women. Each year since 2010, the Government have consistently excluded more and more women from the UK private pensions system.
The numbers remaining in employers’ pension schemes as a consequence of auto-enrolment have been a success for the Government. To date, roughly 90% of people have embraced auto-enrolment and stayed in. Perhaps that will drop a little when we get to the smaller companies, but it has been a success and the Government should be pleased with that. But when it comes to the reforms working for women, particularly women who work part-time, the Government are in danger of snatching failure from the jaws of success.
With the exclusion of 1.25 million women—and rising, because I am sure that the earnings trigger will go up again—we are designing a private pension system that does not work for women who work part-time. We know that in five or 10 years’ time the absolute failure of that decision will be exposed, as previously when women who work part-time were excluded from pensions. But by that time millions of women will have lost the advantage of being auto-enrolled into a private pension. The Government are simply wrong to say that simplicity for employers is worth the price of excluding 1.25 million women—and rising—from the benefits of auto-enrolment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, and I apologise for missing the first few seconds of it. Like my noble friend, I was caught out by the omission of this order from today’s lists, and I apologise to the Committee. I also thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her very detailed and extraordinarily learned analysis of the impact of this order and the ones that have preceded it. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give it the answer it deserves, and I look forward to hearing that.
A helpful note on this subject from the House of Commons Library dated 17 December 2013 reminds us that the original idea proposed by the Pensions Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, of which my noble friend Lady Drake was such a distinguished member, was that the qualifying earnings band should start at the primary threshold for national insurance purposes and should finish at the NI upper earnings limit. The previous Government said in their 2006 pensions White Paper that they would adopt broadly this approach, so the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings band were set at £5,035 and £33,540 respectively, and provision was made for both limits to be increased in line with earnings.
The real jump came with the Government’s Pensions Act 2011, which introduced an earnings trigger for auto-enrolment set at a level higher than the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, on which contributions are paid. As we have heard, for 2011-12 the trigger was set at £7,475 rather than the planned threshold of £5,035 in 2006-07 terms, and the effect of that was to exclude 600,000 individuals, 75% of them women. My noble friend went through some of these figures but I think it is worth rehearsing them because the Minister will have to give us an answer about the effect of these changes.
Since then, the exclusions have mounted up. In 2012-13, the trigger rose to £8,105, excluding 100,000 people, 82% of them women. In 2013-14, it rose to £9,440, excluding some 420,000 people, of whom 300,000—72%—were women. Now, as we have heard, by going up again from £9,440 to £10,000, the Government will exclude another 170,000 people, of whom 120,000—69%—are women. I would be very interested to know if the Government agree with the figure offered by my noble friend Lady Drake about the cumulative number of people who have been excluded from auto-enrolment by these changes.
The DWP paper titled Review of the Automatic Enrolment Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band for 2014/15: Supporting Analysis—I commend the officials on its title—issued in December 2013, offers the defence that the reason that so many women are affected is that women are more likely to work part-time and to earn less than men, so they will be disproportionately represented in the group excluded from auto-enrolment. Well, yes, of course. That is not a defence, it is a reason, but that still leaves the problem. Now another 170,000 are to be excluded from the benefits of auto-enrolment into pension saving.
Of course, not only are women more likely to work part-time but there are those who work in more than one mini-job, neither of which takes them above the trigger point for being brought into this. Those women could, in fact, be earning significant sums of money on which contributions would be payable but because neither job takes them above the trigger they will not be auto-enrolled in either job. I would be interested if the Minister could comment on that.
As so much has been said already, I will ask just a small number of questions of the Minister. The DWP document I mentioned noted—and the Minister reinforced a version of this in his speech—that the Government used three principles in reviewing the automatic enrolment thresholds. The first of these is whether the right people are being brought into pension saving. Can the Minister tell the Committee how the Government reached the conclusion that excluding another 170,000 low-paid workers from the benefits of auto-enrolment met the condition that the right people are being brought into pension saving?
Secondly, with a trigger of £9,440, the target population for auto-enrolment is around 10 million individuals, of which only 37% are women; going up to £10,000, that falls slightly to 36%. When the Minister considers that figure, which came from the DWP’s excitingly named document, and the high proportion of those excluded who are women, is he satisfied that the Government’s approach to auto-enrolment is serving women workers well?
Finally, the paper argues that workers paid below the earnings trigger are likely to be able to achieve their target replacement rates through the single-tier pension if they remain low earners, and it may therefore not be beneficial to direct income from working life into workplace pension savings. If an individual earning £9,999 a year has an option to contribute to a DC scheme, should she take it?
Lord Bates
My Lords, first, both the noble Baronesses referred to the speed with which we have gone through the Order Paper. In fact, that caught all sides on the hop, and apologies are due all round. The responsibility, of course, lies in the preceding orders going too speedily. However, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses, who, in the exchanges we have had over many sittings on the Pensions Bill, have demonstrated their incredible grasp and knowledge of these complex areas, and have spoken passionately about the impact upon women in particular. I will come to these points, and respond to them as best I can.
One of the key things I said in the concluding remarks of my speech was that we recognise that setting these thresholds is a balancing act and that there is no right or wrong answer. It is therefore right that there should be a debate and that it has become an annual debate. It is an affirmative instrument and therefore any changes that are made annually have to come before your Lordships’ House for consideration. That is the right way to do it.
The other point of context we need to acknowledge, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, was good enough to make, is that the figures for auto-enrolment, which I accept came out of the Turner commission, which in turn came out of the Pensions Act 2008 under the previous Government, have been impressive. Significant progress has been made in encouraging the right people to save for their retirement. In pursuing that, we are absolutely on common ground.
It might be helpful if I went through some of the figures that we have for the number of people affected. Raising the 2014-15 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £9,440 to £10,000 will exclude around 170,000 individuals, of whom around 120,000—69%—are women. Raising the 2013-14 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £8,105 to £9,440 excluded around 420,000 individuals, of whom 300,000—72%—are women. I am going back through these numbers because it is a rough way of getting back to the calculation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me whether I agreed with. Raising the 2013 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £7,475 to £8,105 excluded around 100,000 people, 82% of whom were women. Finally, raising the 2011-12 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £5,035—in 2006-07 terms—to £7,475 excluded 600,000 individuals, 78% of whom were women. If one calculates those figures, one begins to recognise the numbers that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, presented to us.
However, it is not so simple as to say that 70,000 women would be in automatic enrolment if their part-time earnings were brought together. I realise that there is a big education job to be done here, because many women who are underneath the threshold need to realise that if they are above £5,772 in terms of the lower earnings limit, they can opt in and therefore get the benefits that would accrue from that.
Baroness Drake
Does the Minister agree that we do not ask the rest of the population to opt in to get the benefits of pension saving and an employer contribution? Why should we ask women to opt in to get the benefit, when all the evidence is that most people will not opt in? Why do we discriminate against lower earners in that way? We do not expect a £40,000-earning male to overcome his own inertia. Why do we expect a £9,000-earning woman to overcome her own inertia?
Lord Bates
I take the point, but the threshold needs to be drawn somewhere. That is the discussion that we are having. There has to be a threshold somewhere because, below a certain level, the benefits of saving will not be as acute for the retirement pension. The question that we are debating is where that threshold should be set. We are not saying that this is a gender issue; we are saying that it is a threshold and income issue.
The noble Baroness is perhaps being a little harsh on this Government’s record on auto-enrolment, but it is worth pointing out that we have also taken a very large number of people, mostly female, out of tax altogether. The rises in the personal allowance since 2010 have taken 2.7 million people out of paying tax. The majority of those people will be female. That is a very positive thing, but I accept that more needs to be done to encourage people to save for their retirement. The benefits of the 3% employer contribution, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, pointed to, will come when the scheme is fully implemented in 2018 and the thresholds and contribution levels increase. At the moment it is 1%, but it is very important that people engage at that 1% level so that their savings can rise as the employer contribution increases.
Of course, in addition to the employer contribution increasing, the employee contribution will rise, and many people who do not make pension savings point to the fact that affordability is the key issue that they are wrestling with.
Baroness Drake
I am sorry for interrupting, but I feel really strongly about this point and I shall come back to it year after year. We are, admittedly, phasing in the contribution rate. However, you cannot get the benefit of the 3% contribution rate unless you are also enrolled at the 1% contribution rate.
Lord Bates
I do not think we disagree with that. I accept that you need to enrol in—to opt in to—the scheme. We are saying that you can opt in and get tax relief from the lower earnings limit of £5,772, and that your employer will have to do that from £10,000. Therefore, we agree on that. Persistent low earners tend to find that the state pension alone provides them with a retirement income similar to that which they would have had during their working life.
Baroness Drake
The noble Lord is arguing that if someone is poor all their life they can make do on the single tier and we are not obliged to give them the opportunity to build up a little capital—is that the policy of the coalition Government?
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness knows that is not our argument. We are encouraging people to save, as far as possible, but we recognise that savings, and how people spend their disposable income, is a choice. At what point does it become an automatic responsibility of the employer to enrol an employee in the scheme? That is what we are debating, not whether people are being encouraged to save. I hope that there is genuine cross-party agreement on this, coming out of the Turner commission, of which the noble Baroness was a distinguished member.
Of course, the whole objective is to increase savings across society. Thirteen million people are not saving enough for their retirement and we want that figure to improve. We want to ensure that as many people as possible are automatically enrolled. The Government believe that the decision on lower earnings is a decision for each person to take, and I hope they will take advantage of it.
Baroness Drake
The noble Lord is defending arguments that are untrue. Auto-enrolment does not work on the basis of it being a decision for individuals. They are put in, they have to come out. They have the choice to come out, but they are put in in the first place. These women are not getting the advantages of auto-enrolment. The point of inertia is that it is not based on informed choice; it is based on the assumption that the individual does this because it is in their best interest.
Lord Bates
We accept that. However, basically we are talking about the same issue: whether people have to opt out when they are put in an auto-enrolled scheme. They have the opportunity to decide to opt out. If they are above £5,772 they have the opportunity to opt in. I take the point that the threshold has to be set somewhere. Having looked at all the evidence, this is where the Government have come down—for this year. As the scheme gathers pace, more information will be available to us and we will be able to make that information available to your Lordships and have it influence decisions.
Baroness Drake
I do not want to be too difficult. However, the Secretary of State has stated clearly that this is driven by his view that people should not be auto-enrolled into pensions until they start paying tax. That is not doing a balancing act; that has been the Government’s consistent position since 2010. The Hansard record shows that I keep asking the question, “Are you going to keep tracking the tax threshold, because if you keep doing that you will exclude more and more women?”. That is not a balancing act. If you did a balancing act, you would say, “What is the balance between that approach and the number of women excluded?”.
The Government have locked themselves in, both by the Secretary of State’s statement and by their behaviour since 2010, when they said that people who do not pay tax should not have the advantage of auto-enrolment. The benefit of releasing them from a certain level of tax is reduced by the fact that they lose the employer’s contribution, and we are now getting to a point where the gain from the increase in the tax threshold is less than the loss of the 3% of the employer’s contribution. So over their lifetime, the low-paid person is actually worse off.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, before the Minister answers that, I asked him whether he felt that the way in which the Government have designed the service served women well. His defence appeared to be that there has to be a line somewhere. The point I was trying to put to him is that the Government have designed this scheme in such a way that only a third of its target population are women; in other words, they have designed a scheme that will benefit two men for every woman. Does he feel that the way the Government have chosen to design the scheme benefits women?
Lord Bates
No more or less than raising the personal tax allowance thresholds is a policy that is designed to disproportionately benefit women compared to men. When the tax threshold goes up from £7,475 to £10,000, that is a massive benefit to women, particularly in lower income positions. That is money coming into their households, so they can decide what to do with it. Anyone with earnings over £5,772 will retain the right to opt in, as I have already said, with employer contributions.
The Pensions Act requires the Secretary of State to review the thresholds each tax year. That is a discussion which takes place. There is a strong argument that says there is synergy there between personal tax allowances at the £10,000 level, helping employers and employees to understand where that mark falls, but in no way does that guarantee what the policy will be going forward. It will be for the policy to be announced and the review to take place and the instruments to come forward next year.
I am trying to work my way through the many questions that the noble Baronesses have put to me. I am not sure whether I have answered all the points.
Baroness Sherlock
I will let the Minister off the first two, if only on the grounds that I am unlikely to elicit an answer that I will find helpful. But my last question was very specific: if an individual earning just less than £10,000 a year had an opportunity to contribute to a DC scheme, does the Minister think that she should take it?
Lord Bates
The view is that this will be a personal choice for the individual faced with that challenge. It is a specific point. I know that the noble Baroness feels very strongly about this.
Baroness Sherlock
I am not asking this question because I feel strongly about it; I am trying to test the Government’s argument that the reason low earners should not be auto-enrolled is that it is not worth saving small sums of money. Do the Government assume that same stricture should apply to private pensions as well as to auto-enrolment?
Lord Bates
Each individual’s situation will be different. In some cases, they will have partners who will be earning more and therefore they will take a household decision to take advantage of the same scheme. For some people, that will not be the case and therefore they will not. We are saying that we want there to be a scheme. We want it to be as simple and straightforward as possible so that as many employers and employees as possible can get full benefit from it, and so that people can get into the habit of saving. It will be up for annual review. There needs to be much more education to ensure that all people who earn below that threshold realise that they can opt in should they wish to and should their personal circumstances make that the right choice for them.
I have tried to address as many as possible of the questions that have been put forward by the noble Baronesses, for which I thank them.
Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold (Revocations, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold (Revocations, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, in my view the Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold (Revocations, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I am aware that there are minor typographical errors in the draft order before the Committe. These do not affect the meaning of the order and they will be put right if Parliament approves the order and it is signed and reprinted.
By way of background, every year, more than 130 million working days are lost to sickness absence with huge associated costs to employers, employees and the wider economy. For example, sickness absences cost the economy around £15 billion a year, predominantly in lost output. Employers face an annual bill of around £9 billion for sick pay and associated costs, and individuals miss out on £4 billion a year through lost earnings. In addition to this, around 300,000 people a year fall out of work and into the welfare system because of health-related issues.
The state spends around £12 billion a year on health-related benefits and £2 billion a year on healthcare, sick pay reimbursement and forgone taxes. The levels of sickness absence and the effect on individuals, business and the economy are clearly a cause for concern and the Government must do what they can to address these issues. We know that, in general, being in work improves well-being. There is a strong correlation between remaining in work and positive health and well-being outcomes. This is why, back in 2010, the Government commissioned an independent review of sickness absence to investigate the current system. The aim of the review was to find ways to minimise the loss of work through ill health and to reduce the burden on and costs to employers, individuals and the state.
As noble Lords will be aware, the review was published in 2011. It made a number of observations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness of restoring people to work including: the abolition of the statutory sick pay percentage threshold scheme, which offers limited reimbursement to some employers for statutory sick pay costs; the creation of an independent, state-funded health and advice service available to employees, employers and general practitioners; and tax incentives to encourage active sickness absence management.
By way of background, employers have a responsibility to pay statutory sick pay to qualifying employees who are absent from work due to ill health. The weekly rate of statutory sick pay is currently £86.70 and it is payable for up to 28 weeks. The percentage threshold scheme allows employers to claim reimbursement of statutory sick pay costs when they reach above a set percentage—in this case, 13%—of their monthly national insurance liability.
Returning to the review, the Government agreed with the reviewers, Dame Carol Black and David Frost CBE, that the percentage threshold scheme can be seen to financially reward employers where sickness absence is highest and provides no incentive to manage sickness absence in the workforce. This was not the intention of the scheme when it was introduced in 1995. Therefore, the Government have accepted the recommendation to abolish the statutory sick pay percentage threshold scheme. This is part of a wider programme of measures to encourage a more proactive approach to managing sickness absence in the workplace by both employers and employees. The abolition of the scheme gives us the means to invest into establishing the recommended state health and work assessment and advisory service. To be known as the health and work service, it will be implemented in Great Britain in 2014 and will ensure that public funds are used to tackle sickness absence in a more effective and targeted way than the percentage threshold scheme.
The proposed new service has been broadly welcomed by business. For the first time many smaller businesses will have access to work-focused occupational health assessment and advice, which will support an earlier return to work for their employees. To further help employers, the Government are planning a tax exemption for any health-related interventions funded by employers for their employees, as was recommended by the independent review.
In conclusion, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the money currently spent each year on the percentage threshold scheme will be more effective when reinvested into the new health and work service. We expect a reduction in lost working days and an earlier return to work for many employees. In return, this will bring benefits to business, employees and the wider economy. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I woke yesterday morning to hear on the radio an announcement about a wonderful new scheme the Government are planning to introduce called the health and work service, which would cover England, Wales and Scotland. I wonder what happens in Northern Ireland. I am not sure I caught that. This scheme would offer voluntary medical assessments and treatment plans for employees. There was nothing in that bulletin to inform the listener that this would be paid for by scrapping the percentage threshold scheme, or PTS, which enables employers to reclaim some of the costs of statutory sick pay, or SSP, from the state. I will be charitable and assume that this is because Parliament has not yet approved this order. I know that Ministers are loath to let anything slip out to the media before Parliament has had the opportunity to scrutinise it in great detail—although I confess that, somehow, the BBC had got hold of that side of the story on its website a little later.
These regulations abolish the percentage threshold scheme, and we are assured that stakeholders welcomed the change, apart from one employer representative group which was concerned about the impact on small employers of removing the remaining element of SSP reimbursement. We were told that the average amount claimed under the scheme in 2009-10 was £500 per year, per claimant—that is, per employer claiming. That may not sound a lot, but the impact assessment also tells us that micro-employers, those with fewer than 10 workers, receive 70% of the recovery, and £500 can be a lot of money to a micro-employer.
I know of a church in Durham, where I live, the sole employee of which is a rather wonderful youth worker; the vicar, of course, is paid by the diocese. Sadly, the youth worker has been off sick for some months. It was a big decision for the church to hire her, but it decided to dip into its reserves to hire a youth worker to work not just with the children in the church but children in the local community. Unfortunately, she has developed a condition which means that she has been off sick for some months. She is brilliant and the church does not want to lose her, but money is tight. Thanks to the PTS, it has been able to get some of the SSP back, so it can afford to pay a locum to do at least some of the work. At the moment, a locum youth worker is running a wonderful club for a few weeks for year 6 children in the neighbourhood to help them prepare for moving up to secondary school. However, my point is that £500 to that church is a lot of money. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have talked to micro-employers about the likely impact of this change on their operations? According to the Black review of sickness absence, micro-employers represent 82% of employers; obviously, they represent a smaller percentage of employees, but that is a lot of employers.
The argument made in the Black review is that PTS compensates mainly small employers for “higher-than-average sickness absence” but fails to promote attendance management; I think that was the point the Minister was making. That seems to me to fail to distinguish between two things that were rammed home to me in business school in assessing sickness absence in an organisation: the number of periods of sickness and the number of days of sickness. If you have a lot of periods of sickness, a lot of employees off for a small number of days, that can tell you something about whether people are taking sick leave a lot and it can tell you something about morale. The total number of days can be completely skewed in a small organisation by one person having a very serious illness. I did not see that distinction made. A good example would be this church, which would look as though it had a terrible sickness record but that is because one youth worker happened to develop a condition.
I am trying to draw this out, because I wonder if the Minister could help me to understand. The assumption is that those who get most of the money are small organisations with higher than average sickness absences, which therefore fail to promote attendance management. I wonder whether the evidence backs that up. Can the Minister help me to understand that rationale? The impact assessment says that the abolition of the PTS removes a transfer of some £50 million from the Exchequer to businesses and that the new health and work advisory service will generate a net value of around £70 million for employers—£120 million in benefits minus £50 million in intervention costs, I gather. There will also be a presumed benefit to the state.
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that that means that all the current spend on the PTS of £50 million is being recycled into the new scheme. Can the Minister confirm that? The assumption is therefore that businesses are not losing out. However, if that is true, what calculations have been made as to how evenly the gains and losses will be distributed? After all, if 70% of the benefit of the PTS goes to micro-employers, is it assumed that 70% of the benefits of the new service will be enjoyed by micro-employers? The impact assessment says that smaller employers are expected to benefit disproportionately, as they are less likely to have their own rehabilitation and occupational health services, but it did not quantify that. Can the Minister tell the Committee if any assessment was made? If so, what is the distinction? Within smaller employers is a large group: micro-employers are those who have fewer than 10 workers. Was any distinction made between those two categories?
A crucial question is whether the fact that in future employers will bear the full cost of SSP is likely to have any effect on their willingness to hire or retain staff whom they may judge likely to need it. In other words, will they discriminate against staff who have a potential health issue or have had a health record in the past that gives them cause for concern? The impact analysis does not address that directly, but under the heading “Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks” it includes the following assumption:
“The removal of the PTS doesn’t precipitate (illegal) discrimination by employers against employees with poor sickness absence records”.
Can the Minister tell the Committee what evidence underpins that assumption? I am not saying that that will happen but I would be glad to know why the noble Lord, Lord Freud, felt sufficiently confident that it would not to sign off the impact assessment without that assumption spelt out in it.
My other question about these regulations relates to whether there is any risk that employees will be less likely to receive SSP under the new system. In consequence of the abolition of the PTS, the Government have also produced a set of regulations which have not yet taken effect, which propose to abolish the requirement on employers to maintain records for each employee relating to sickness absence and the payment of SSP for three years after the end of the tax year where SSP was paid. I refer to the Statutory Sick Pay (Maintenance of Records) (Revocation) Regulations 2014.
Can the Minister tell us what risk assessment the Government have undertaken as to the likelihood of employers not paying SSP correctly or at all once the record-keeping requirement is abolished alongside the order we are discussing today? The Explanatory Note which covers both orders tells us that HMRC will retain the power to require an employer to produce records to show them that SSP has been paid appropriately. What discussions has the department had with HMRC to satisfy itself that there will not be an unintended consequence of some employees not getting the money to which they are entitled? The Explanatory Note also says:
“Stakeholder engagement found that employers maintain records of sickness absence for payroll, tax and other staff management reasons”.
Can the Minister confirm that those stakeholders include individuals from or representing micro-enterprises?
Finally, the 2011 Black review on sickness absence recommended that the Government should carry out further research into the reasons behind the significant number of people claiming ill health benefits who come straight from work, especially from smaller employers. That is the earlier Black review. It recommended that the Government carry out further research into the reason why significant numbers of people claiming ill health benefits who come straight from work appear not to have been paid sick pay by their employer beforehand. Has that been done?
My very final question is that the impact assessment notes that HMRC periodically visits businesses to see if their payroll is running smoothly and it reviews payroll documentation including SSP and sickness absence records. Can the Minister clarify whether on those visits HMRC will still routinely review SSP records? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions and for the case study she gave us from the diocese of Durham, which of course I have a strong affinity with and want to see everything possible done to help. In considering that, the best thing that could happen to any small employer in that situation is that the employee returns to the workplace. The question is whether, through this reallocation of the resource from the threshold scheme to the health and work service, it is more likely that the person concerned will find a pathway back to the employer and the workplace, which is the best solution all round. Our view is that it will and that it is a better use of the resource.
The noble Baroness asked how the £50 million that is currently paid under the threshold scheme will be allocated. It will be used to fund the health and work scheme and the tax exemption for interventions which was announced in the Autumn Statement. Where interventions are recommended to get somebody back to work which incur a cost—for example, the provision of physiotherapy or a particular piece of equipment or a change in working practices—the employer will be able to offset that cost. Many large national or multinational companies have sophisticated HR departments which seek to address all these issues to get employees back into the workplace as soon as possible. However, micro-employers do not have that facility. They will be able to take advantage of the new scheme and make some savings as a result of it. That is one of the reasons why it is widely welcomed by them. Micro-employers will benefit more than larger employers for the reasons I have outlined.
Less than 10% of micro-employers make claims under the percentage threshold scheme, which raises another point that the scheme is so complicated and complex that many micro-employers who could benefit from it do not take advantage of it at present because they do not appreciate that it is there. We hope that with the publicity surrounding the new way of working through GPs and employers and employees, more will take advantage of the service, and that will be to the benefit of all. Micro-employers currently receive around 70% of the money paid out under the scheme. The average claim under the scheme is less than £500 a year, but this masks considerable variation. For example, around 25% of micro-employers claimed less than £200 in 2008-09.
The noble Baroness asked about a particular church employee. The health and work service will support the employee and the employer in the diocese to try to find a plan to enable the person concerned to return to work under the new scheme. She also asked why the scheme will not apply to Northern Ireland. However, this is a fully devolved matter for Northern Ireland and therefore it will make its own decisions on how the scheme will operate. The health and work scheme will apply just to England and Wales.
The noble Baroness asked about the abolition of associated SSP record-keeping. Employers will still need to maintain SSP records for pay-as-you-earn and tax purposes. There is no evidence to suggest that employers will not meet their SSP obligations as a result of record-keeping abolition. The HMRC statutory payments disputes process will continue to ensure that employers meet their obligations. There will be ongoing monitoring of disputes and the actions which are taken.
I think that that covers many of the points which were made. However, the noble Baroness may be about to tell me—
Baroness Sherlock
I would hate to disappoint the Minister and I thank him for going through so many of my questions.
I have a couple of specific points. His answer to my concerns about the record-keeping point was that the Government assume that since employers keep records anyway, there is no reason to assume they will cease to keep them. They say that in its routine visits HMRC currently inspects payroll records, including SSP records. Is it the intention of the Government that it will continue to inspect SSP records on these visits, even though companies are not specifically required to keep them in the form that is described here? The suspense is killing me—I look forward to hearing that answer.
Can the Minister explain again the position of micro-employers? My understanding was that 70% of the benefit was going to micro-employers, but I think he said it would be only 10% of the claims. Perhaps he could help me to understand that. The point I was trying to draw him out on, about the fact that the new service will more than compensate for the loss of the PTS, was that I can see that across populations that is true but if, as a micro-employer, you have only one or two employees and they cannot be got back to work because of the nature of their conditions, they will lose out. Was any thought given to whether they might be protected from that in some way?
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness asked about the HMRC visits. I am delighted to give her the answer, which is yes. She also asked for clarification on the 10% figure. I said that less than 10% of micro-employers make claims under the percentage threshold scheme, which I think was the point she was asking for clarification on.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the abolition of the percentage threshold scheme is important so that savings can be reinvested in the new health and work service, which will benefit both employers and employees in reducing lost working days and increasing economic output. I commend the order to the Committee.
NHS: Competition
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the place and value of competition in the National Health Service.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the place and value of competition in the NHS. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that I received notice that I had secured this debate rather late last week. As a result, we have a rather select and distinguished band of noble Lords speaking today.
I want to make the case that we now have an unhealthy degree of competition, but in doing so I do not want to suggest that competition per se is necessarily a bad thing; nor do I want to get sidetracked into an ideological argument about the relative merits of free markets versus collective action. I want to try to tease out what the evidence really is for the value of competition in the NHS.
It is probably a basic human urge to compete. When I was a physician working in a hospital in Salford and when I was dean of Manchester’s medical school—here I express my interests in both—I have no hesitation in admitting that I was competitive in wanting my hospital and my medical school to be the best in the country if not in the world. It so happens that Salford Royal hospital is now lauded as being one of the most advanced in the way that it provides its services—it has obviously taken advantage of my absence to do great things.
However, when one comes to the National Health Service—that is, the national service—naked competition can become very counterproductive. We can certainly have too much of a good thing and the unhealthy degree of competition that we have now is interfering with our need for that collaboration and co-operation that are so vital for optimal patient care, to say nothing of its impact on integration as I will describe.
It is not as if we have never had competition before now; indeed, the previous Labour Government introduced the principle of opening up services to private providers. However, we took a devastating leap forward, or more accurately backward, with the health Act 2012 and the unloved Section 75, which placed a virtual obligation on commissioners to go out to tender for any and every service. It is that obligation that distinguishes it from what went before. We need to get the balance right between healthy and unhealthy competition. I shall give some of the many examples of where we have not got it right in a moment or two.
Those who promote competition in health services say that it improves patient care and efficiency, but what is the evidence for that? Does it work and, if so, in what circumstances and for what particular services? As one might expect, there have been a number of academic studies to try to tease this out and the results have been far from conclusive. The Office of Health Economics report in 2012 was very cautious and found that while some aspects were improved, others were made worse. Let us listen to those who have done the research. Dr Light wrote in the Journal of Health Politics:
“Promotion of competition is guided by political and ideological considerations and is not supported by any scientific evidence”.
Valentina Zigante and her colleagues have written:
“The ideology of competition and choice is running way ahead of the evidence that it improves efficiency, equity or quality”.
Dixon and Le Grand have said that there is,
“no evidence that the choice policy has resulted in significant changes for the patient or to patient pathways”.
However, we do not need to rely on academic studies to recognise the difficulties that we now have with the competition agenda: the problems are absolutely clear in the many day-to-day examples in the NHS. One only has to look at the gross case of Poole and Bournemouth, where everyone involved—the public, local authority, the doctors, nurses and managers—all agreed that amalgamation of the trusts’ services was essential if they were to be able to provide a safe and efficient accident and emergency service, avoid the £8 million black hole that was looming and save £14 million a year. After reportedly spending some £6 million on legal fees and gathering mountains of documentation, the whole thing was blocked by the Competition Commission. You do not need too many examples like that for managers around the country to run a mile before engaging in similar rational mergers or use of resources.
There are many other examples. Let us take the case of the CCGs in Blackpool which had found a better and cheaper way of dealing with patients with headaches than having to send them to a hospital, only to be challenged by Spire private healthcare for not sending them enough cases. The cost to the CCGs in money and time of having to sift through mountains of records to fight the case was very high and will certainly make others think twice before going down the same route. There are reports that in Bristol, the unified cancer care pathway has been put on hold, while at King’s College Hospital the plan to integrate care for the elderly with the local council has been stopped by competition law.
It is not as if this bonanza for the lawyers was not predicted. In our debate on the Section 75 regulations last April, several speakers, including myself, warned of just this sort of costly litigation. As Sir David Nicholson said to the Health Select Commons Committee recently, the NHS is getting,
“bogged down in a morass of competition law”.
Despite all the reassurances given by the noble Earl when we debated the statutory instrument last April, managers in the health service are running scared of coming up against competition law whenever they set up their contracts for services. It is hardly surprising, according to a recent survey in the Health Service Journal, that nine out of 10 chief executives are making their top priority the cutting back of competition rules, and it is not difficult to see why they feel obliged to avoid litigation when they have Monitor breathing down their necks, as well as the Office of Fair Trading backed by UK public procurement regulations and EU competition law looming above them. It is of little use to managers that the kindly David Bennett of Monitor is hinting that he will not pursue them if they take a sensible approach and do not go out to tender for anything and everything, because in practice the law is biting hard.
It is hard, too, to see how multiple contracts with a range of providers can fail to impact on the need to focus specialised services in a smaller number of hospitals or to centralise scarce facilities. These rational and laudable aims can hardly avoid being inhibited by the drive to competition. And, of course, there is the knotty issue of integrating care across the hospital/community divide, which everyone wants to see but which will be inhibited by competition for the different elements of what should be seamless care. There seems little doubt that uncontrolled competition can result in a fragmentation of services that simply frustrates the need for a strong and coherent set of services.
What can be done about it? We have to tackle the legal driver of competition law which is creating such an expensive diversion of resources and manpower away from more important work like caring for patients. It is no use saying that commissioners have the freedom given by reassurances from Monitor on the one hand when they find that they have to defend themselves from legal action taken by private providers on the other. I have only one question for the Minister. Will he help to obviate this legal quagmire into which we seem to have blundered by repealing this onerous and damaging set of regulations and starting again with a less destructive set?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister is not feeling got at, and I am extremely pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be speaking in the gap. I think that the lack of speakers in this debate bears out what we knew during the passage of the Bill—that this is a hellishly complicated matter. I wonder, indeed, where the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is here today, but she is now bound to support what the Minister has to say. Where are the noble Lords who helped to get the current competition regime through your Lordships’ House and on to the statute book two years ago, and why are they not here to explain how well they think it is working and that their support for it is therefore justified?
We know that people are fearful, as my noble friend has explained. They are fearful on the ground. They do not know how to express their worries, and often they realise too late that something precious has been undermined when the decisions their doctor is making may have something to do with Spire Healthcare or Richard Branson’s Virgin Care on the bottom line than what might be best for them—or that, at the least, those two things are being balanced against each other.
We know that competition comes in many flavours. Peer competition, as expressed by my noble friend, for clinical excellence is fine. Indeed, I have long championed the provision of social enterprises, and what value they can bring to some healthcare as being good for everyone concerned—not least the taxpayer because 5% to 10% is not being siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders across the world. That profit is being ploughed back into the social purpose of the provider and innovation. Indeed, we know that there has always been a mixed market in the provision of healthcare, and always as part of a planned process of provision.
Competition in various forms between NHS providers has been tried, as with the wide choice of acute providers for routine operations. As my noble friend has said, by 2010 the Labour Government had come to accept that there may be some occasions when an incumbent NHS provision could not be brought to the required standard and an open competition might be best. Tactical use of open competition could therefore be a tool. However, the Health and Social Care Act was always about competition as a strategy which essentially sees healthcare as a commodity and, essentially, Part 3 of the Act brings into play the ideas that have been used for the privatisation of utilities in the past. We went through this at length and, on this side of the House, we predicted what might happen.
The NHS has now tendered three-quarters of new contracts to competition. Section 75 regulations were made under the Health and Social Care Act in April last year. They appear to force competition on to the NHS in contravention of ministerial promises made during the stormy passage of the Act itself. At a critical juncture, the then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley wrote to the new local—as they became—clinical commissioning groups, telling them that,
“I know many of you have read that you will be forced to fragment services, or put services out to tender. This is absolutely not the case. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that you as commissioners, not the Secretary of State and not regulators, should decide when and how competition should be used to serve your patients’ interests”.
He told the House of Commons:
“There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that promotes or permits the transfer of NHS activities to the private sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/13; col. 169.]
Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, promised us here in your Lordships’ House:
“Clinicians will be free to commission services in the way they consider best. We intend to make it clear that commissioners will have a full range of options”.—[Official Report, 6/3/13; col. 1691.]
However, when the regulations emerged, there was a storm of protest. The noble Earl repeated:
“It has never been and is absolutely not the Government’s intention to make all NHS services subject to competitive tendering”.—[Official Report, 12/11/13; col. GC266.]
Can the Minister put a percentage on what he thinks is a reasonable amount to go out to tender and what he thinks is not a reasonable amount to do so?
Critics, including leading lawyers, say the redrafted regulations did no such thing; they did not fulfil the promise that the noble Earl had said that they would. They still enforced compulsory markets in the NHS, regardless of clinical or local wishes and in contravention of government promises. Indeed, my noble friend has given some examples.
In the debate on 24 April 2013, Liberal Democrat health spokesperson, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, told the House of Lords:
“Commissioners will not be forced to tender”.—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. 1486.]
Indeed, the noble Earl backed him up, saying that,
“it is NHS commissioners and no one else who will decide whether, where and how competition in service provision should be introduced”.—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. 1508.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told the Lords:
“We have learnt in the debates in this House to trust the noble Earl, Lord Howe”.—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. 1496.]
Well this is a matter not of trust or otherwise, but of whether the Government’s course is the right one. We believe that the evidence now shows that, indeed, it is not. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as my noble friend has said.
Is the Minister now prepared to release the Government’s legal advice on this matter, which has not been released so far despite requests from various people, including my noble friend Lord Hunt? Overall, the impact of the Health and Social Care Act has been negative, as it has deflected money and energy from clinical care into administration. We have seen the fears from CCGs around what Section 75 means. It appears to mean—certainly, this is what many CCGs understand—that almost every service has to be competitively tendered.
We have seen a CCG offering the biggest NHS contract in history, in Cambridge, and making a thorough mess of that process. We have seen claims by a CCG in Oxford to be leading on competition for outcomes, and, again, stalling when confronted by providers. My noble friend has also mentioned what has been happening in Blackpool, in relation to Spire. I would like the Minister’s comments on what has happened in Blackpool, and what he thinks are the implications of the Spire challenge, and Monitor’s support for it.
I also want to ask the noble Earl about the amount of money that has had to be spent in Bournemouth and Poole on the merging of the hospitals there. The merger seems to be completely justified on clinical grounds; however millions of pounds have been spent on lawyers and paperwork. This is one of the hospitals that already have a deficit: the merger is urgently needed. Does the noble Earl think that can be justified in today’s cash-strapped NHS?
We have heard from many people that they believe that the requirement for competition is hindering the need for integration and co-operation—as we said it would. The people who seem to be benefiting most from the new regulations and the new NHS, as structured by the Government, are competition lawyers. They are being allowed to call the shots, it would appear. Most of all, the vision expressed by Mr Lansley in 2006 for a regulated market for our healthcare seems to be losing its supporters and its driving force is gone. Indeed, rumours abound that the once-enthusiastic Liberal Democrat fellow travellers are now seeing the light. Much of what Mr Lansley wanted is being rolled back or ignored.
The problem is that the market requires no strategic direction because it has its own impetus, which is to make profits where they can best be made. The NHS needs a strategic direction. The Government, however, are incapable of delivering that strategic direction because in the passage of this Act they have given away the levers that would allow them to do so. They can make statements, they can make plans, they can pass strategies, but they no longer have the levers to be able to deliver them.
What does the future hold? Would the Minister speculate about what the next Conservative manifesto might offer the NHS? Noble Lords may remember that the Prime Minister promised that there would be no more tiresome, meddlesome top-down restructuring. That statement may have been wiped off the internet by the Conservative Party, but we remember it very well. What does the Conservative Party think that it might bring forward in its next manifesto? I finish by quoting what David Nicholson, the retiring head of NHS England, has said about this:
“We are bogged down in a morass of competition law. We have competition lawyers all over the place telling us what to do and causing enormous difficulty”.
He also said,
“All of [the politicians who drew up the Health and Social Care Act] wanted competition as a tool to improve quality for patients. That’s what they intended to happen, and we haven’t got that…”.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for being allowed to speak in the gap, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, on securing this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, may wish to know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had hoped to speak in this debate, but is speaking instead on the Immigration Bill in the main Chamber.
I am pleased that he and other Liberal Democrats persuaded the Government to make some key changes to Part 3, on procurement, in the Health and Social Care Act, which limited private practice in the NHS and beefed up Monitor with regard to the promotion of competition, in order to provide reassurance that other factors could and should be taken into consideration.
This nuance in the debate is often lost by the two opposing views of pro- and anti-competition. Not all competition is bad, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has pointed out. The Labour Government were quite content to have it in the NHS. I, for example, was using Healthcare at Home, which was contracted by a number of hospitals prior to the coalition Government to provide domiciliary support for patients injecting medication at home. The service and support were excellent, and the economies of scale, I am sure, enabled them to provide that at a good price. The ancillary contracts are, I hope, less contentious than deciding how to contract out core clinical services: those issues are justly more sensitive. That is why I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his perseverance last year in pushing for amendments to the regulations to ensure that cost is not the only guide to winning a procurement contract. Transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory processes must be evidenced to support procurement decisions.
The new guidance will remove doubt about where quality and competition interact, and Monitor’s role in taking the lead over the OFT and the Competition Commission is a positive step forward. The Monitor guidance on the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) Regulations 2013 makes this abundantly clear. For commissioners, this will mean a considerable change in approach to procurement. Finally, the guidance is so explicit that cost alone is not the route to follow that even the competition lawyers will have to take note. Patient need, quality, and improvement of service are key factors that must be taken into account.
The EU directive on public procurement due to be implemented during this year reinforces this. The new regime for health service contracts requires that,
“award criteria can take into consideration important elements in the provision of health services including quality, continuity, accessibility, comprehensiveness of services and innovation”.
Further, the directive makes it clear that,
“greater emphasis is put on considering environmental and social issues in public procurements … Simply considering price, rather than quality, as the only award criterion will be discouraged”.
I hope that this will provide clarity for future CCGs as they start to consider whether they need to tender.
Finally, we should remember the core principle in competition and choice in the provision of healthcare services in the NHS in England, which is that competition should be employed where it serves the interests of patients; it must not be an end in itself. NHS England has said that competition is just one means of improving the quality and efficiency of NHS clinical services and securing value for money. I would ask my noble friend the Minister, given all the noise we are hearing at the moment about problems with competition lawyers and others disagreeing about where the lines are drawn, whether the EU directive guidance and the Monitor guidance will clarify matters enough to remove that doubt. If that is the case, I hope that improved transparency, a focus on patient needs and proportionality will act as the guardians of our excellent services in the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of an NHS foundation trust, as president of GS1 UK, and as a consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections Ltd. I, too, welcome my noble friend’s debate and the opportunity to return to the issue of competition. I think that it has to be seen in a wider context. No one can be in any doubt about the pressure that the National Health Service is currently under, often because of conflicting policy objectives that the Government are setting. On the one hand, quality and safety demand more staff, but on the other hand, that must take place at a time when the NHS is in its worst financial position. The health service also has to face up to huge demographic pressures. However, the response so far has been to see a vast number of frail elderly people being admitted to hospital and then staying in too long because of a lack of appropriate community care and support. We have debated the urge for seven-day working in our hospitals, which is to be highly commended, but that is being jeopardised by the failure of primary care and social care to respond in parallel. Instead of leadership, co-ordination and partnership, the Lansley changes have bequeathed a dysfunctional system where essentially the Government have legislated for fragmentation—and fragmentation is certainly what has been delivered.
Clinical commissioning groups, often staffed by very good people working with the best will in the world, cover too small a population to be able to give strategic direction across a health economy. The local area teams of NHS England are focused exclusively on micro-management rather than leadership, under the weight of excessive performance management from NHS England headquarters. NHS England was itself promised autonomy, but is getting anything but. Its target-obsessed approach seems strangely at odds with the post-Francis culture that is required. Fragmentation at the local level seems to be matched by confusion that reigns at the national level. The Lansley “hands-off” model has been ripped up by the current Secretary of State, who intervenes at every turn. How else can we explain the weekly meetings that he has with the bosses of NHS England, Monitor and the CQC, all supposedly independent bodies? Independent, my foot.
On top of all this, we have competition, which we have debated many times. Of course, choice and competition have a role to play in the National Health Service—on that, I agree with my noble friends. Indeed, when in government I was involved in involving the private sector to help provide extra capacity, speed up hip replacements and cataract surgery, and reduce waiting times for the NHS. Moreover, I have no doubt whatever that where existing services have consistently underperformed, alternative providers, including the private sector, third sector, mutuals and social enterprises, are important as a way to turn things round. However, to conclude that market principles are a panacea is simply wrong. It is enforced competition and enforced marketisation that we on the opposition Benches are opposed to.
I know what the Minister is going to say. He has consistently told us when we have debated these issues that CCGs were free to commission services and would not have to create markets against the best interest of patients, but I remain of the view that Part 3 of the 2012 Act and the Section 75 regulations mandate the open tendering of services.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and welcome her to our debate. I say to her that while I accept that the Section 75 regulations were withdrawn and rewritten, my reading of them remains as I read them at the time: that, in the end, CCGs will essentially be forced to tender all services. That is certainly what the health service thinks. We can see already the impact of this. FOI requests have unearthed the fact that in the first six months of the new system, clinical commissioning groups had spent at least £5 million on external competition lawyers. We also know that NHS providers have reported a sharp rise in their legal bills as a result.
Both my noble friends have mentioned the intervention of the Office of Fair Trading, which is causing absolute havoc. We have the cases in Dorset and in Bristol. The impact of this has been the putting of a lot of sensible reconfiguration proposals into cold storage but, my goodness me, how much we need bold reconfiguration proposals to be implemented in order to provide high-quality, safe care. What has happened in Greater Manchester, where the move to centralise cancer services into fewer top-performing specialist centres is apparently in jeopardy because it is being claimed that it will be anti-competitive and reduce patient choice? My noble friend mentioned the Blackpool case, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that. My understanding is that the CCGs have had to hire administrative staff to collect thousands of documents, tracking every referral from GPs. What a complete waste of time and effort. I refer the noble Earl to a survey of hospital chiefs conducted by the Health Service Journal last December, in which 88% of them said that securing change to competition and choice rules should be a priority for the incoming chief executive officer of NHS England. What a lot of priorities he will have to face when he starts in April.
All this is well known both to the noble Earl’s department and to NHS England. I do not want to repeat what his honourable friend Norman Lamb said, because my noble friends have already done it, or the evidence that Sir David Nicholson gave to the Health Select Committee last November, when he highlighted the cost and frustration caused by the way in which competition law was being used.
I want to ask the noble Earl about the proposals that NHS England is putting forward to centralise specialist services in a small number of centres—or at least it has been said that that is what it is going to be doing. Can the noble Earl confirm that? Is he confident that such proposals will not lead to Office of Fair Trading interventions if he is reducing the number of specialist centres? In view of what Mr Lamb and Sir David have said, will the Government bring proposals to the House in the next Session to put this right? The Opposition stand ready to help the noble Earl make changes to legislation in this regard.
Clearly, competition has a place—I have no doubt about that. I stand by the work that I did to encourage some private sector involvement in order to get waiting times down. That is a very good example of when it is useful to use the private sector. But competition is not the be-all and end-all; it is not the panacea that some claim. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very reasoned argument. My response to her and to the noble Earl is that I know that we are getting guidance and further work is being done in this area, but the fact is that the health service thinks it has to tender almost all services. I am afraid that once you do that, in effect you have a competitive market. That is the problem we face. I hope very much that the noble Earl will tell us that the department and the Government will actually listen to the concerns which have been expressed by a considerable number of people in the NHS, NHS England and his own department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for tabling this topic for debate. I will begin with three simple statements, to serve as mental marker posts, as it were, before I respond to the questions that have been raised.
First, amid the many changes that we made to NHS commissioning through the Health and Social Care Act, one area of the law that has not changed one iota is the law relating to competitive tendering. That law has been in place for a number of years; it has been governed by a European directive; and, as regards the rules governing NHS procurement, the Section 75 regulations change nothing at all.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to “Mr Lansley’s agenda” on privatisation. There is no government agenda to privatise NHS services—quite the contrary. We made it illegal in the Health and Social Care Act for the Secretary of State, Monitor or NHS England to have a policy deliberately favouring the independent sector.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke of a deliberate policy of enforced competition and marketisation. I must correct him. It is NHS commissioners alone who will decide whether, where and how competition in service provision should be introduced. There are no obligations on commissioners to create or promote markets; nor are they required to fragment services against the interests of patients.
Those three points are key to understanding what the Government are doing and what we are not doing. I will now turn to the place and value of competition in the NHS, which has long existed. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, pointed out, patients have long exercised choice over where they receive services from. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, acknowledge that third sector and independent providers play an important part in providing NHS care; for example, in hospice care for terminally ill patients, mental health services and long-term nursing care for the frail elderly.
We have seen over the past decade the independent sector treatment centre programme and the introduction of payment by results in 2003, the advent of patient choice in 2006, and the transforming community services programme of 2008. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that it was this changing landscape that introduced greater competition to the NHS; it was not the Health and Social Care Act. There is robust evidence from a variety of sources that quality-based competition can work to the benefit of patients, and I shall come on to cite that evidence in a moment.
The previous Administration put in place a set of rules to manage that competition, known as the Principles and Rules for Co-operation and Competition, and the Government committed in their response to the NHS Future Forum report to maintain these and place them on a statutory footing so that they could continue to apply to commissioners. That is exactly what we have done; there has been absolute continuity in how the rules apply. Clinical commissioning groups work within this framework to secure the best services for patients that they can, from whichever provider best offers that prospect. In essence that is the value of this framework of rules. They will be supported in this activity by guidance from NHS England and Monitor, and through the work of commissioning support units.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me what I would regard as a reasonable proportion of NHS activity to be put out to tender. I have no view on this, and nor should I. The decisions on tendering are entirely up to commissioners and not Ministers. The noble Baroness also indicated that seven out of 10 NHS contracts have gone to the private sector since last April. I point out that that figure is highly misleading. It was quoted in a newspaper article, but the contracts in the sample that was quoted amount to a tiny and unrepresentative sample of the scale of NHS activity. In reality, spending on healthcare from private-sector providers equates only to around 6% of total NHS expenditure. It was roughly 5% at the end of the previous Administration.
My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether there will be guidance from Monitor to clarify the duties on commissioners, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that commissioners are confused about that. Monitor has now published its guidance to support commissioners in understanding and complying with the Section 75 regulations. Monitor, along with NHS England, will undertake further engagement with commissioners to support them in understanding the requirements. I acknowledge that there is a degree of misunderstanding out there, but not everywhere. NHS England’s forthcoming procurement guidance will provide further guidance on the EU requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised concerns about fragmentation and barriers to integration. To the extent that fragmentation exists, I say to him that it existed as greatly under his Government. I am proud to say that this Government are taking practical steps to make integration more commonplace throughout the country. We are supporting a number of integration pioneer sites, which will trailblaze new ideas to bring care closer together. They will be leaders of change—a change we have to see in the system if we want to offer the best-quality care.
We are also supporting the system through the £3.8 billion Better Care Fund, which will encourage organisations to act earlier to prevent people reaching crisis point, to offer seven-day services, and to deliver care that is centred on people’s needs. That idea and that fund have been widely welcomed. Therefore, our focus is for commissioners to innovate and to work with partners in the sector to design integrated care pathways for patients that allow for a seamless experience of care. I assure the Committee that the competition rules do not stand in the way of that. In fact, the Section 75 regulations explicitly allow for it.
Under the regulations, the objective of a commissioner must always be to secure the needs of patients, including through services being integrated. For example, in Milton Keynes, substance misuse services used to be delivered by several providers, resulting in fragmented care. Users found services difficult to navigate, which impacted on treatment entry and retention rates. In response to this, NHS Milton Keynes CCG and Milton Keynes Council developed an outcomes-based approach to commissioning. Existing services were brought together into one fully integrated, recovery-focused service, delivered by a third sector organisation, which enabled more effective delivery of care and efficiency savings of 15% to 20%. That is a clear example of good commissioning delivering improved services for patients.
I turn to the OFT’s role and the review of mergers. Again, it is important to realise that the NHS has long had arrangements in place to review mergers on competition grounds, and that in considering mergers the competition authorities are acting under their existing powers under the Enterprise Act 2002.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, criticised Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Act. Repealing Part 3 of that Act would not remove the powers of the competition authorities. In fact, the 2012 Act was important in clarifying those powers in order to address the legal uncertainty for NHS bodies as to whether mergers between them would be considered by the OFT or the CCP. Without this clarification, providers would have been at risk of double jeopardy, with both bodies potentially seeking to undertake a review.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, cited several examples of challenges being issued on competition grounds which he attributes to the existence of Part 3 of the Act. I do not want to comment on the detail of those cases—it would be wrong of me to do so—but I would point out that challenges of that kind would have been quite capable of being brought even if the Government had never introduced the Health and Social Care Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I understand where the noble Earl is coming from in relation to the Enterprise Act. However, is it not a fact that essentially what happened was that the 2012 Act was a signal to the market that a market was being put in place? Why have a 300-page Act and why have the Section 75 competition regulations? In essence, the Government opened the door in this regard and that is why these challenges are now taking place. They did not take place before the 2012 Act.
Earl Howe
The market, however, did exist, which was the point that I made. The market was out there well before the 2012 Act and well before this Government came to office. It was incumbent on us to clarify and simplify the rules that the previous Government put in place. We did that through Part 3 of the Act. It was not a signal to anybody to marketise the NHS. Indeed, as I said, we explicitly provided for it to be illegal for Ministers or Monitor to prefer the independent sector over public sector providers. That is explicit in the Act, so the noble Lord cannot accuse the Government of enabling legislation to promote marketisation.
Baroness Thornton
My noble friend’s question was actually about the signal. If, as the noble Earl has told us, all these things existed before the Act, why did we have to have Part 3 of the Act? Why was it necessary? The only reason that it seems to have been necessary—we think that the evidence now shows that to be the case—is that it increased marketisation in the NHS.
Earl Howe
Let me be clear. Repealing Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Act, which is what the noble Baroness appears to be suggesting is desirable, would not stop competition law applying. It would not remove the powers that the OFT has, which were introduced by the previous Government. It would just mean that a health expert regulator—Monitor—would not be the body considering the application of competition law to the NHS. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of patients. That provision was widely welcomed by those who understood these matters.
I was asked about the case involving Blackpool and Spire. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing investigation by the independent regulator but I stress that, in considering this case, Monitor is doing nothing that the Co-operation and Competition Panel could not have done under the principles and rules for co-operation and competition. As regards the Greater Manchester proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised, I can inform him that Monitor has closed that case and NHS England is pursuing its procurement of these services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about Bournemouth and Poole. I want to be clear that there is nothing to stop two providers coming together if it is in the best interest of patients. The OFT has already cleared two out of three mergers. However, while in some places mergers have improved things for patients, there is evidence that some mergers can be costly and may not deliver the benefits that were intended. It is therefore right that these are examined. The competition authorities have listened to concerns raised in the system. That is why, in October last year, they set out their commitment to work together with Monitor to ensure that the interests of patients are always at the heart of the merger review process; that the process works quickly and predictably; and, importantly, that any costs can be minimised.
Monitor will take a more active role in supporting merging parties and advising the OFT. This means that some mergers may not need to go to the competition authorities at all, and that those which do can be dealt with more quickly. For example, the proposed merger involving Torbay and Southern Devon Health and Care NHS Trust—an integration pioneer—and the South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust is one of the first cases in which, with the help of Monitor, the trusts have been able to self-assess and conclude that they do not need to notify the merger to the OFT, as it would be unlikely to raise concerns from a competition perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, challenged me on the evidence for the value of competition. There is robust evidence, as I have already mentioned. A report of January 2012 by the Office of Health Economics states that,
“evidence both from the UK and internationally suggests that quality based competition with prices fixed by a regulator can be beneficial, producing higher quality care at the same cost on average and, importantly, not leading to increased inequity in access to care”.
Researchers at the London School of Economics have found that hospitals in areas where patients have more choice of provider have shorter lengths of stay in hospital and lower death rates than in less competitive markets. Research by York University found an increase in quality at a hospital stimulated local rivals to respond, as well as to increase the quality of their services. The research found improvements in relation to mortality rates, stroke readmission and patient satisfaction.
There are various other answers that I would like to give, but I have been advised that I am well over time, for which I apologise. I simply conclude by saying that this has been, as ever, a stimulating debate on a topic to which I am sure we will return in coming months. I hope that my comments today have at least partially clarified the legal position and wholly clarified our intentions regarding the place of competition in the NHS. I hope, too, that they have provided some measure of reassurance to noble Lords that the system is acting upon the concerns that it hears.
House of Lords
Economy: Manufacturing
Baroness Wilcox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the levels of manufacturing activity in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, manufacturing output increased by 0.8% in the final quarter of 2013 and by 2.5% over the course of the year. A strong manufacturing sector remains crucial to the UK economy, both now and in the future. Manufacturing is a major driver of productivity growth. It accounts for £12.2 billion of UK business R&D and over half of the UK’s exports, and provides employment for 2.6 million people.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
I thank the Minister and am delighted to know that my Government are doing so well. However, if we are to fill industry’s growing need for a young workforce who are skilled in new techniques and disciplines—such as those required in the pharma industry—it is time that careers advisers and teachers in our schools understood and offered equal status as regards the choices between universities and apprenticeships. EAL’s survey of 600 apprentices found that fewer than one in 10 of them found out about their options from schools. It cited the case of a girl with A grades who wanted to be an apprentice but was told that her adviser could not help. She has gone ahead and done it on her own: she has trained as an apprentice with BAE and is now fully qualified and fully salaried. She has a car of her own and is putting down a deposit on a house—good girl.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We have placed a legal requirement on schools to secure independent careers guidance, including information on apprenticeships, and we are successfully increasing the numbers of apprentices in the engineering and manufacturing technology sector subject area. In 2012-13, there were 138,700 such apprentices, an increase of 10.3% on 2011-12, and we have opened 17 university technical colleges, with a further 33 in development.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware of the recent Jaguar Land Rover publication which talks about busting the myths? This company—along with Semta and EAL, which the noble Baroness mentioned—is doing a magnificent job with apprenticeships. However, it is perhaps a little unfair to suggest that all this started with this Government. Jaguar Land Rover now has seven plants in the UK, four of which were opened, with R&D and apprenticeships, way back in 2004. The Government are to be applauded for carrying on what was already in place. Over that period apprenticeships have grown, on which I congratulate them.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Baroness but I would echo her thoughts that Jaguar Land Rover has done a magnificent job in leading our exports into new markets abroad. This is on top of the excellent news about Bombardier in the Midlands, a decision which gives a new vote of confidence in British manufacturing and which supports 760 manufacturing jobs and 80 apprenticeships in the UK.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the Technology Strategy Board’s catapults have been a very positive move forward in driving innovation for manufacturing, especially the high-value manufacturing catapult. These catapults were to a certain extent based on the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, but our effort is rather small compared with Germany, which has 60 while we still have fewer than10. Are we going to expand this programme?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a good point. It is true that we are behind France and Germany in this aspect, but we are taking several actions, particularly with our catapult programme and the EPSRC—the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council—which will lead us forward and enable us to compete in markets. It is essential that we do this.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am sure we all want to encourage a much more robust manufacturing base in this country. An article in the Economist last week pointed out that, unlike the rest of the country, the north-east and south-west regions still saw an increase in unemployment up to the year ending November 2013. There are huge problems at the moment in the south-west, which was already facing a downturn in its tourist industry and now has floods and difficulties with trains. Is there anything the Government can do to encourage a more long-term, stronger economic and, indeed, manufacturing base in the south-west of England?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Our industrial strategy focuses on the whole country. I note the right reverend Prelate’s point about the south-west where they are suffering so terribly from the floods. The industrial strategy has five main strands which are bearing fruit, particularly in places such as Liverpool and Tyneside, and the south-west is just as important.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House welcomes a recovery in manufacturing, but can my noble friend tell us about the Government’s preparations for potential shortages in technical skills as economic growth picks up? What plans do they have to extend the higher apprenticeship scheme?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the Government will provide an extra contribution of £40 million to deliver an additional 20,000 higher apprenticeship starts in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years. Professional bodies are playing a key role in developing a professional apprenticeship route. The changes we have made to higher apprenticeships now provide a clear, work-based progression pathway from an apprenticeship through to higher education and professional careers.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister recognises that the north-east is a very strong manufacturing area but has continuing unemployment. Will he guarantee that the Government will eventually support the UTC that Hitachi wants to sponsor in Newton Aycliffe in order to get a highly skilled workforce for train building in the north of England?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will need to write to the noble Baroness about that specific example, but I hope she will be greatly encouraged by the huge amount of work going into progressing the UTCs. There are 50 of them, creating 30,000 opportunities for young people to train as engineers and scientists for the future. These are the skills that we need to build up.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister about the definition of manufacturing versus services. A lot of the new technology sector that I am aware of does not really fit into either category, and I suspect that the overall assessment of manufacturing is underassessed as a result of technical developments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes a very good point. Indeed, manufacturing has changed enormously. Although I do not have a precise definition for him, it is true that manufacturing includes myriad small businesses that are working very hard not just within the UK but in helping our export drive.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, any growth is welcome but it is worth noting that manufacturing is still lagging behind services and construction in this week’s PMI figures, which measure business confidence. Is the Minister aware that concerns have been voiced by major manufacturers, including Nissan and Hitachi, about pushing Britain towards the exit door in Europe? A report from the manufacturers’ association, EEF, shows that manufacturers want to remain part of the European Union with no ifs or buts.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall give a very quick answer to the noble Lord. We are working extremely hard to develop markets in Europe, which at the moment are proving to be quite challenging.
NHS: Black and Minority Ethnic Nursing Directors
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Executive Directors of Nursing in the National Health Service are of black or minority ethnic background.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
Data from September 2012 estimate that there are 195 nursing directors. Of these, five, representing 3%, identified themselves as being from a black or minority ethnic background. The Government recognise that there needs to be better progress in promoting talented BME nurses to senior and influential positions. Last month, NHS England launched a coaching and mentoring scheme, and it is currently working on a strategy alongside the Chief Nursing Officer’s Black and Minority Ethnic Advisory Group.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that detailed response, and I am pleased to know that NHS England is taking some steps on this. This is a hidden problem, with fewer than 3% of nursing directors coming from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. This underrepresentation, which is mirrored elsewhere in the NHS, is particularly important because it affects morale, and staff morale in turn, as noble Lords will know, inevitably affects patient care and outcomes. In other words, this is a health issue and not just an equal opportunities one. Will the Minister say a bit more about his plans to deal with this problem and, crucially, whether he will arrange for progress to be monitored and reported on publicly by the Care Quality Commission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission or some other independent body?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this issue. A strong focus on equality and diversity is essential to create services and workplaces that are equitable and where everyone feels that they count. The position at present is highly unsatisfactory. The Chief Nursing Officer has personally assured me that this is a priority for her, and she is working closely with BME nurse leaders to address how to support BME nurses to prepare themselves for promotion. Forty-six million pounds has been invested at the NHS Leadership Academy in schemes on leadership development being led by the Chief Nursing Officer. At last year’s BME nursing conference, she made a public commitment to renew efforts to develop BME nurses more effectively, and that will include monitoring.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, what figure, set by the Government or Public Health England, would constitute a success for the strategy that my noble friend has just outlined?
Earl Howe
We have to be a little careful about doing anything that appears to look like positive discrimination or setting quotas, because we stray into areas of dubious legality if we do that. Having said that, as I have indicated, the priority of the Chief Nursing Officer is extremely clear and substantial resources have been put behind this. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, did when he was NHS Chief Executive. We have picked up a lot of the ideas that he promoted at that time. I would be very disappointed if there were not progress within a few years but one has to set a realistic time horizon.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. One answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, would be to point out that 18% of the NHS workforce in England is from a BME background and 14% of the population of England is from a BME background. As 2.6% of nursing directors comes from a BME background, that shows that there is a very long way to go. Is the Minister confident that NHS England is acting in accordance with the Equality Act? If he is not confident, what is he going to do about it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, just to correct the noble Lord, the latest figure I have from 2012 is that total ethnic minority groups in nursing, midwifery and health visiting comprise 19.7% of the nursing workforce. That underscores the basic point that he made. One cannot aspire to 19.7% of those ethnic nurses becoming nurse leaders because there is only a limited number of leadership posts. However, we are clear that this should be a priority for the NHS.
The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is that the Equality and Diversity Council has published some refreshed guidelines. One of its goals is to have a representative and supportive workforce throughout the NHS. It is putting that in train by asking NHS organisations to monitor their equality performance jointly with their patients, communities and staff.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, ten years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, described the NHS as being snow-capped—that is, all white at the top. Since his departure as Chief Executive of the NHS in 2005, there are now fewer leaders from visibly different backgrounds and, as we have heard, pitifully few executive directors of nursing. What are the Government doing to ensure that this matter is kept at the top of the agenda and to assure us that we will hear about the success of the programme as it continues?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have already mentioned some of the initiatives that are in train. However, I can tell my noble friend that, within the NHS Leadership Academy, there are two programmes specifically for nurses and midwives that map to foundation, mid and executive level leadership development. There is the front-line leadership programme which is for staff who have leadership responsibilities—for example, ward sisters and nurses working in primary care. We expect 6,000 nurses and midwives to participate in that programme in the first year. There is also the senior operational leaders programme which provides senior nursing clinicians with an opportunity to enhance their leadership skills.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, a web audit found that only 80 NHS trusts publish annual staff data broken down by ethnicity. Will the Minister reassure the House that all NHS trusts meet their legal obligations under the Race Relations Act and that all workforce issues faced by black and minority ethnic staff are identified?
Economic Inequality
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Giddens
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what policies they have to address economic inequalities in British society.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, according to the latest ONS statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986. The Government are committed to ensuring that all families benefit from the return of growth to the economy and maintain that the best route out of poverty and the best way of reducing inequality is for households to move into work.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, I do not recognise it at all. Burgeoning social exclusion on the bottom; stagnant wages in the middle; runaway incomes and wealth at the very top—this is not a formula for a stable and integrated society. Surely the Government need some more radical and far-reaching policies to deal with this disturbing situation, which even the grandees at Davos are rather perturbed about.
Lord Newby
My Lords, one of the priorities of the Government is to ensure that work pays for everybody. This is one of the benefits that the Universal Credit will bring. This is one of the advantages of taking 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether. This is one of the reasons why my colleague, Vince Cable, has asked the Low Pay Commission to look at raising the minimum wage beyond what it might otherwise do, and this is why the Government support the living wage. Ensuring that work pays—and pays well—for people at modest levels of income is a top priority for this Government.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is far more important to focus on making the poor richer than on making the rich poorer?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we want to make sure that everybody makes a fair contribution to society and that all those in work get a fair wage for their labour. Obviously, there comes a point when taking too much tax from those right at the top becomes counterproductive. However, certainly in terms of income tax take, the proportion of income tax now paid by the top 1% is at a historically high level.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the first report published today by the Living Wage Commission, chaired by my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, which found that emerging economic recovery will have no effect on more than 5 million workers unless employers pay a living wage. It found furthermore that 6.7 million of the 13 million people in poverty in the UK are in a family where someone works—which, for the first time, is more than half the total. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to address this real concern?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government are encouraging employers to pay the living wage where they can. One of the key things about people in work on very low incomes is that a large proportion of them are working a small number of hours or a smaller number of hours than they would like. Economic growth will mean that more of those people are able to work longer hours, which will help deal with their household circumstances.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, not everyone is able to take paid work. Will the Minister explain what impact the raft of social security cuts, which will make the poor poorer, will have on inequality?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the prior question to that is: why are these changes being made? The answer is that we inherited a completely unsustainable economic circumstance which this Government are putting right.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, despite recent efforts there remains a significant youth unemployment gap between black and white youths and some ethnic minorities—45% compared to 19%. While urgent improvements in skills and employability are needed to reduce the remaining structural problems, what more is being done to tackle the racial inequality that appears to be the key underlying factor?
Lord Newby
My Lords, one of the key challenges that the Government face is that educational attainment for some ethnic minority groups is lower than for others. That is why the priority being put in by the Government, via the pupil premium, to those schools with a larger than average proportion of children from those backgrounds is so important. Raising their attainment, as well as, as we have heard in an earlier question, putting in place UTCs, will provide much more vocational training, which is one of the key things for helping children from those communities.
Lord Peston (Lab)
My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for being an economist and for allowing some economics to get into an economics question. Is the Minister aware of the research evidence on these matters, which is that we need some inequality in our society in order to provide a proper incentive system? However, it is possible—and it is almost certainly the case in our country—that we have far too much inequality, which is a disincentive to economic growth. The Government do not seem to understand that, but when the Labour Government take over next year they will understand it and will deal with the matter.
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is no doubt why we inherited such rosy economic circumstances.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister used the graphic phrase, “making work pay for everyone”. It certainly pays for bankers, as Barclays tomorrow will announce another £2 billion in bonuses, following the £2 billion that it paid out last year. Since 2008, banks will have paid out, in accumulation, £80 billion in bonuses—£1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. How can the Government talk about us all being in this together when there is such an obvious imbalance in the economy?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, bonus levels in the City—although he finds them outrageously high—are now very much less than they were. There is a now a raft of domestic and EU rules in play that will reduce the extent to which bankers can take bonuses, except over a period and when bonuses are linked to the performance of the bank.
Housing: Commonhold
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to review the present requirement for the agreement of 100 per cent of tenants in leasehold blocks of flats in order to convert the tenure of those flats to commonhold.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, my interest is declared in the register. Can I ask the Minister if he is aware—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Oh! I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the 100% rule for conversion from leasehold to commonhold.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have asked this Question repeatedly over the years and I have always had the Answer that it is totally impossible? That is on record in Hansard many times. Does the Minister think that, as we now have so many different Acts covering the same issues, even for the skilled property lawyer it has become quite a nightmare, and is impossible for ordinary people? Even today I am wandering too. Does the Minister think that it is time that the Government asked the Law Commission to review this legislation with a view to bringing in a consolidation Act?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner has been a doughty champion of commonhold and has indeed recorded her interest and Questions on a number of occasions, in the past decade in particular. Of course, commonhold is successful and well established in other parts of the world, particularly Australia. Unfortunately it has failed to attract much enthusiasm in this country. It was originally the creation of the Law Commission in the 1980s. Whether review of commonhold legislation might be suitable for the commission’s further consideration is a question for the Government ultimately to decide. They have to decide priorities in accordance with the protocol but will bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has pointed out, my noble friend Lady Gardner has on many occasions very effectively brought to the attention of the House the defects in domestic leasehold law. He gave a rather dusty reply as far as the Law Commission was concerned but it has been engaged in consultation about its 12th programme. The decision is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Is it not high time that the whole question of commonhold enfranchisement and leasehold law was considered by the Law Commission?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the 100% rule, which is the subject of the Question from the noble Baroness, was in fact discussed in some considerable detail during the passage of this Bill through Parliament—the original Bill having been introduced by the party opposite. For reasons that we suggest are substantial, it was decided not to make the 100% rule a part of the law. Unfortunately, commonhold has not proved to be popular and there has been a very limited take-up. There is no obvious reason why this should be, particularly with new developments, although I accept it is much more complicated when converting leasehold to commonhold.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the council of the Property Ombudsman, which receives complaints from leaseholders. I fear that no one in your Lordships’ House will recall my maiden speech, during the passage of the Bill to which the Minister has referred. In that, I expressed considerable hope that commonhold would solve a lot of the problems that leaseholders face. That has proved utterly unfounded and this piece of legislation must be one of the least successful on the statute book. However, it works in other countries and this approach to leasehold in the future would bear scrutiny from perhaps—if the Minister’s own department or the Law Commission will not take up the cudgels—a group of parliamentarians. Does the Minister support the idea of a group of parliamentarians having their own inquiry to see whether we can break out of the logjam that seems to leave leaseholders in a very adverse position?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord is right about the degree of success. The House might like to know that only 16 commonholds have been registered in England and Wales, and the legislation came into force in 2004. None of them is particularly large. The largest, which has 30 units, is apparently a caravan site and only one with four units seems to be a conversion from leasehold.
During the passage of the Bill to which the noble Lord referred a number of increased rights were given to leaseholders, in particular of flats, to allow them to take over management of the building; to make it easier for leaseholders of flats to buy, collectively, the freehold of their building; and to allow unreasonable service charges to be reviewed by leasehold valuation tribunals. Part of the reason for the lack of take-up may be because other advantages accrued to leaseholders as a result of that legislation.
I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any of the assurances that the noble Lord required from me, but of course this is a matter that goes across different government departments and all his observations will be taken back to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this group of leaseholders is very lucky that it has the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, speaking on its behalf. But does the Minister accept that there is absolutely nothing in the Consumer Rights Bill currently going through Parliament to help this group or any other group of consumers in any meaningful way on a group issue such as this? Will he agree to try to work with BIS to strengthen that Bill to help these and other issues where a group of consumers is not getting the requirements that it wants?
Lord Faulks
The noble Baroness is no doubt right, although I cannot confirm that there is nothing in that Bill that adds to the rights of potential commonholders. The position is that, although it has been available, it simply has not been taken up by professionals who might be considered to be aware of it—solicitors or surveyors. It has not been the subject of articles in journals. There simply does not seem to be genuine enthusiasm for it. That is regrettable, but it is a fact and the Government do not believe that people should be forced to go into these arrangements if they do not want to.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Having listened to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best, will the Minister join me in suggesting to him that he applies to the Liaison Committee for an ad hoc committee to consider the matter?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord is very experienced in parliamentary matters. No doubt that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Best, and he will have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Consequential Provision) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 6 November and 18 December 2013 be approved.
Relevant documents: 13th and 17th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.
Legislative Reform (Overseas Registration of Births and Deaths) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 December 2013 be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.
Child Support Fees Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 December 2013 be approved.
Relevant documents: 16th and 18th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd and 27th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.
Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [HL], have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I briefly take the opportunity to thank the Law Commission for making possible the reforms contained in the Bill. I also express the Government’s gratitude to the noble Lords who served my predecessor, my noble friend Lord McNally, on the Special Public Bill Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee in thanking the several witnesses who provided evidence on the Bill, including Professor Elizabeth Cooke, who many times throughout the course of the Bill provided invaluable expertise on the areas of law that it covers.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join the Minister in expressing thanks, particularly to Professor Cooke and her colleagues on the Law Commission and all those experts in the law who were so helpful to the Committee. It was almost a pleasure to revisit issues like hotchpot, remainder and the like, with which the noble Lord and I were last acquainted many years ago—more years ago in my case than in his. Their involvement proved the value of that procedure. That being the case, given what was said earlier about leasehold enfranchisement and commonhold, I would commend the use of the Law Commission in that connection, and I hope that the commission might prove as successful in reviewing that issue as it has on this. We are indebted to all those who participated, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who struggled along with the rest of us through the earlier stages of the Bill, and to the present Minister, who took over with considerable aplomb.
Lord Faulks
I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said. Indeed, his own contributions to the debates are notable. I also thank the Bill team, whom I now see in their place, for providing such valuable assistance.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, as a country we welcome the benefits migrants bring to our industries, educational institutions and communities. We know that most migrants are here lawfully and benefit our country, but some are not: they enter the country illegally, overstay their permission to be here, work illegally, undercutting the resident labour market, contribute to overcrowded housing, claim benefits and damage social cohesion.
It is true that the “bad apple” immigration stories often drown out the positive ones. Many in this House have rightly championed these positive stories and campaigned for policies to bring even more benefits to the UK. The challenge for both Government and Parliament is to implement policies which strike the right balance, keeping the door open to those who have something to contribute, while maintaining a firm response against those who abuse our hospitality.
Immigration is an issue of significant concern to the public. This Government remain committed to reducing net migration. This is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010, with net migration from outside the EU down to 140,000. It is at its lowest level since 1998. We have tightened the immigration routes where abuse was rife, strengthened the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK, reformed the family visa system and set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted to the United Kingdom.
These reforms are not just about reducing volumes; rather, they have changed the character of migration to the UK. Although international student numbers are down by a third overall, the number of international students within our world-renowned universities has held steady. Indeed, the number of visa applications by students sponsored by a university increased by 7% last year. This Government closed the so-called highly skilled migrant programme, where research found that nearly half the migrants on the programme were in fact in low-skilled employment. However, we continue to welcome to our country migrants who have something to contribute, and the number of sponsored workers continues to rise. We have opened new routes for entrepreneurs and people of exceptional talent. In China, we now have more visa centres than any other country outside Asia, delivering the largest-ever increases in high-spending visitors.
This Bill will not undermine those important achievements; it will support them. The Bill does not make the UK a less attractive destination for legal migrants. Instead, it is about stopping abuses and making illegal migrants easier to remove. By dealing firmly with those who harm our country, it allows us to continue to welcome those who will bring benefits.
Before turning to some of the detail, let me say a little more about what the Bill does not do. Much rhetoric has been expressed about the Bill that is not borne out by closer inspection. The Bill does not undermine individual rights; rather, it strengthens them. The arbitrariness of whether the family life threshold has been met is replaced by clarity and consistency. We are giving the force of primary legislation to a framework set up to support Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Court of Appeal has already supported in recent judgments. In doing so, we can ensure that serious criminals will be deported and that those deportations will be subject to less delay. That will not damage human rights but instead restore balance and public respect. It will address the erosion of public confidence in our laws.
The Bill does not undermine access to justice. Yes, appeal rights are being reformed, but that is essential. Visit any court in the country and listen to one of the 70,000 immigration cases heard each year, and you will not have to wait long to hear late claims that should have been made years earlier or claimants presenting new evidence not previously seen by the Home Office, thus turning the appellate body into a first-instance decision-maker. The Bill tackles this head-on but also provides an alternative, quicker, administrative remedy, while preserving a full appeal where fundamental rights are at stake.
The Bill does not deter legitimate students. Yes, they will have to pay a little more to access health services in future, but that is designed as a fair contribution, not a deterrent. We have consulted widely and given careful thought to this matter, taking into account the international market in which our universities compete. The extra cost to international students represents just over 1% of the total cost of their studying in the UK. The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK is competitive as a place for the brightest and best to come. Nothing in these proposals will prevent us achieving that goal, but it cannot be right that the National Health Service is open to the whole world. By taking action, we are addressing some long-standing anomalies in a wholly proportionate way.
The Bill is also not about Europe, despite what may have been said in the House of Commons or in the media. We are dealing with the imbalances in European migration by other means, but not here, not in this Bill. This Bill tackles non-EU illegal migration. It streamlines the process of removing illegal migrants while protecting the vulnerable. The coalition’s programme has been clear that we will build a fairer immigration system, looking after children and families within it and reintroducing exit checks to allow us to tackle overstaying and people fleeing British justice. The coalition is rising to those challenges.
The Bill is not seeking a brand-new power to deprive British people of their citizenship; these powers already exist. The British Nationality Act already sets out the circumstances in which the Home Secretary can deprive a person of their citizenship. The limited change that the Bill contains is to allow a small number of naturalised citizens who have taken up arms against British forces overseas or acted in some other manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK to be deprived of their citizenship, regardless of whether it leaves them stateless. There is a safeguard of a full right of appeal.
I hope that I have dealt with some of the myths surrounding this Bill. Let us return to some of the detail of what the Bill seeks to do. Part 1 of the Bill is about removals. The current process for enforcing the removal of people unlawfully in the UK is a complex one with multiple decision points. The system provides individuals with multiple opportunities to bring challenges throughout the process. This increases the risk of delay. We want to adopt a system in which only one decision is made. This will inform the individual that they cannot stay in the UK, and will enable immigrant enforcement to remove them if they do not leave voluntarily. We will, however, do this fairly, acting humanely, and ensuring all concerned have adequate notice.
Families being removed will continue to benefit from the coalition’s commitment to end child detention. Family cases are some of the most difficult that we handle, so it is right that they be given special consideration. The new family returns process, which was introduced two years ago, puts the welfare of the child at the heart of the decision and returns process. The coalition will reinforce the commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes by putting key elements of the family returns process into primary legislation. Amendments will be tabled in time for consideration in Committee in this House.
Part 2 of the Bill is about appeals. We are simplifying an overly complex system that forces people to bring expensive and time-consuming appeals. These reforms will incentivise those who wish to make claims to do so at the earliest opportunity and will strengthen the adverse consequences for those who make claims too late, in order to obstruct the removal process. We recognise that many appeals are allowed under the current system and there will be legitimate concerns. Many appeals are allowed because we take a different view from the courts on Article 8. The Bill will require the courts to put the public interest at the heart of their consideration of Article 8. We are achieving this in a way wholly compatible with the convention and fully maintaining our duty to promote and safeguard the best interests of children.
Many appeals are allowed because of administrative errors in decision-making. We believe that an administrative review can better correct those errors. We will debate the merits of the administrative review in Committee, but it has proven effective at resolving entry-clearance removals since 2008. A 28-day administrative process is substantially quicker and cheaper than the average 12 weeks it now takes to appeal via the tribunal and all the costs that this incurs.
Part 3 of the Bill is about migrants’ access to services. We want to ensure that only legal migrants have access to the labour market, free health services, housing, bank accounts and driving licences. Our proposals on housing attracted much interest in the House of Commons. We will require landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. We know that this is a significant change to the law but the same was true when employers were required to start doing similar checks some years ago.
We will protect the vulnerable. We recognise that vulnerable people often possess less documentation to demonstrate a right to rent, so we have broadened the documents which prospective tenants can provide to manage this. We have exempted hospitals, hospices and care homes for the elderly as well as hostels and refuges for victims of violence and homeless people; they are all exempt. We will have a statutory non-discrimination code to ensure compliance with equality laws. Finally, we have committed to a phased rollout so that we do this safely and learn as we go.
On migrant access to healthcare, the current position in the UK—
Lord Cormack (Con)
What about the small landlord or landlady? Will he or she be able to seek an exemption?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is no specific exemption for the small landlord or landlady any more than there is for the small employer, as noble Lords will know. None the less, we will have the opportunity to debate the detail of these provisions when we get to Committee. In introducing the Bill at this Second Reading, I am trying to present those general principles which underline it.
I was starting to talk about health insurance. On migrant access to healthcare, the current position in the UK is very generous. While temporary migrants do not qualify for state benefits, those coming to the UK for more than six months usually qualify for free healthcare on their arrival in the UK. Unlike many other countries, we do not levy access charges or require health insurance. The Bill will address this by requiring non-EEA migrants who come here for more than six months to pay a health surcharge. The money collected will be channelled directly to front-line NHS services. Visitors and illegal migrants will not pay the surcharge; they will continue, as now, to be fully liable for the full cost of most NHS treatment charges. We have exempted a number of vulnerable groups from having to pay.
The health charge has been designed to be simple and cost effective to operate, avoiding administrative complexity that would erode the financial benefit to the taxpayer.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
If the Bill is so perfect, why do so many organisations concerned with immigration oppose it, and oppose it with vigour?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, long experience shows that the best way of handling these debates is to allow my noble friend the Minister to lay out his stall, explaining how the Bill works, and then debate the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I am sure that noble Lords would expect me to extol the virtues of the Bill—they would be sorely disappointed if I failed to do so. It will be for noble Lords in this House to discuss its provisions, but some of the commentary that I have read over the past few days on the Bill bears no relation to the Bill as drafted, or indeed to the intention of the Government. If I may give an example, claims that we intend to turn GPs into immigration officers are untrue. Claims that communicable diseases will spread like wildfire and that emergency care will be denied are far-fetched. Nothing in the Bill changes processes in our front-line health services.
Part 4 of the Bill is about tackling sham marriages and civil partnerships. These are entered into by a couple who are not in a genuine relationship for the purposes of circumventing immigration controls. They are a significant problem, as this House will recognise. The Bill will enable more of these cases to be identified, investigated and prevented from gaining an immigration advantage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said, a lot has been said about this Bill and a lot more will be said. I know that this House will give it serious scrutiny and I would expect nothing less. While we do that, I hope that we will separate myth from reality and spin from substance. The Bill renews the legal foundations for proper enforcement of our immigration laws. That enforcement is necessary to build public trust in the system. It is also necessary to enable us to reap the benefits of migration as a nation. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and for meeting me, my noble friend Lord Rosser and the former Immigration Minister last week. We know that there is considerable concern about immigration and we appreciate that at times its pace has been too fast. The duty of government is to manage immigration in a way that is fair and just to citizens and fair and just to those who wish to live and work in the UK. Even though we support some of the measures in the Bill, it does not tackle the issues that could really make a difference and are of the greatest concern. A number of the measures fall in what could be called the realm of unintended consequences in that they have a significant and disproportionate effect on law-abiding British citizens, legal visitors, and visa holders who are an asset and contribute positively to the UK.
The Government’s policy of managing and reducing migration is deeply flawed. Their net migration target is a measure for success, but does not target the right things. It means that highly qualified UK professionals who leave to work abroad are classed as a government success. Fee-paying students, including those studying for doctorates and undertaking valuable research, who no longer come to the UK but now pay fees to study and develop research in other European countries, are also classed as a success. That is not our definition of a successful, well managed immigration policy. It is not just about numbers. It is about people and the contribution that they make, and also our international humanitarian obligations, such as in the case of Syrian refugees fleeing horror, torture and rape.
We are in total agreement that we need to tackle illegal immigration. We need to do more to ensure that foreign criminals are deported, but illegal immigration is getting worse and the Government appear to have been remarkably lax in tackling it. Just last week Judge Richard Bray said that the Home Office and the Border Force were “hopelessly undermanned”, which had led to an Albanian national who, having been convicted of drugs and violent offences, was imprisoned and then deported three times on three separate occasions—and yet each time he returned to the UK to reoffend.
That is where real, determined and effective action needs to be taken. The number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by more than 13%, from 5,471 to 4,700. Between 2011 and 2012 the number of businesses fined for using illegal workers plummeted by nearly half, from 2,269 to just 1,215. So under this Government the number of people stopped from entering the UK at our borders has halved, the number of people removed for breaking the rules is down by 7%, and only half as many businesses have been fined for employing illegal workers. Either the extent of the problem has been vastly reduced under this Government or they are incompetent in managing our borders and addressing the problem of illegal immigration.
The response of the Government is not to look at tackling the problem at source. It is not to seek in this field to manage borders effectively and combat people trafficking. It is not to examine whether the Government have deployed adequate resources or made cuts to the bone, making it harder for immigration officials to do their jobs. The Government’s response is this Bill. It is in effect to outsource their responsibility for illegal immigration to landlords and nurses, for example. We have said time and again that the Government’s focus in dealing with immigration is wrong and ineffective on illegal immigration. That leads to greater exploitation and abuse of migrants, has a far greater negative impact on the UK as a whole and undermines public confidence. So while the Government have deliberately presided over a massive fall in the number of university students paying to study in the UK, students who contribute intellectually and financially, they have been totally ineffective in tackling the shocking abuse in student visitor visas, as highlighted in tonight’s “Panorama” programme.
There are real concerns about some of the measures in the Bill but we have grave concerns about what is not in the Bill. Where are the measures that would really make an impact on illegal immigration? Where are the measures to protect workers from being undercut on wages or being put at risk from lax working conditions, or from gang masters exploiting the weak and desperate to work?
We welcome a sensible debate about managed migration and immigration and its impact on the lives of citizens and migrants. Where measures are sensible they will have our support. For example, we all want to see stronger action against sham marriages. We will apply three tests to the Government’s proposals. First, we will look at the evidence base for the proposals that the Government are bringing forward. Secondly, we will look at the practicality, workability and proportionality of the proposed measures. Thirdly, we will look at the effectiveness and impact of those proposals, including on the wider population. For example, the Government claim that their measures to tackle illegal immigration by in effect co-opting landlords as immigration officials will reduce the housing available for illegal immigrants and therefore increase the number leaving the country. However, they also admit that the costs exceed the benefits that they can quantify and they have no idea how many illegal immigrants would be affected. They have no idea whether there would be any impact on the number of homes available to rent.
The Bill is clear that landlords should not act in a discriminatory way. How is that going to work in practice? Most landlords already undertake checks. The Residential Landlords Association fears that:
“Landlords will have to cover their backs and avoid accusations of discrimination by examining identity documents of all potential tenants”.
Will all potential tenants need to have a passport with them? What about the 17% of British citizens who do not have a passport? What other documents will be acceptable? How will landlords know what documents they should use and recognise? What about the woman fleeing a violent home who does not have access to any documentation to prove her citizenship? What about students who, although studying here legally, will be unable to present their passports to prospective landlords until they are in-country but need to arrange accommodation before they arrive?
As conscientious as law-abiding landlords will be, the Government know that it is possible to get it wrong and make a mistake. When the Minister, Mark Harper, employed his cleaner, he was confident that he had undertaken the appropriate checks on her nationality. He is an intelligent man. He knows the law and would have done his utmost to comply with it. But he made a mistake. He got it wrong. How many landlords could make a similar mistake? If the Immigration Minister can so easily get it wrong, how can the Government possibly think that each and every landlord in this country, whether renting 100 properties or, to echo the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, just one, is qualified to act as an immigration official? Good legislation has to work in practice, which is why we will table amendments for a UK-wide pilot to be undertaken and will forensically question the Government on this and other measures.
Clauses 33 and 34 on health are narrower than the Government’s spin doctors have implied, and indeed narrower than what the Government have already produced proposals on, including charging for access to GPs to tackle what Ministers call “health tourism”. These proposals are more limited but still require further examination. Clause 33 makes provision for a new charge as a condition of certain visas and Clause 34 redefines who is liable for charges—that is those without indefinite leave to remain.
The principle that visitors to this country who are not entitled to free healthcare can be charged by the NHS is already established but, according to the Bill, the money collected via the visa system does not go directly towards NHS healthcare but to the Consolidated Fund. The Minister said that it would go to special projects. I do not know whether the Government will be bringing forward an amendment to that effect. Bizarrely, this could lead to greater costs and less income for the NHS if you take into account that a number of those would pay or have insurance. The Government now intend to replace this with a visa charge that will not do direct to the NHS. It would be helpful to develop further in Committee how that charge will go to the NHS and what it could be used for if it cannot be used for their treatment. Will redefining those liable to pay mean that those legally working in this country and paying taxes will also have to pay for healthcare? There are a number of areas to probe further in Committee on access to services.
There are two further issues I wish to raise with the Minister today. The first is in Part 2. Clause 11 removes the right of appeal for First-tier Tribunal cases. We know the system is a mess. Successive reports from the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration have highlighted problems. There are serious delays and the quality of decision-making is poor. The most recent statistics reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance decisions were successful appealed last year. These are cases where the Home Office got it wrong, but instead of trying to address the initial decision-making problems, the Government are now seeking to remove the right to appeal these wrong decisions. I think the Minister said that they want to get it right the first time. That is right, but what happens is that the Government do not like losing appeals so they want to abolish them. If we get decisions right the first time, there would be no need for so many appeals. Given that the Government’s own estimate of the cost of the new system of judicial review that they seek to put in place is around £100 million, would it not be better to put more effort and resources into getting the initial decision right?
When this Bill was debated in the other place, just 24 hours before Report a new amendment was tabled by the Government, which has now become Clause 60 of this Bill, on deprivation of citizenship. Currently, Governments can remove citizenship from individuals in certain circumstances but only if they have citizenship of another country so that they are not left stateless. The Government’s new proposals remove that condition so that the Home Secretary can deprive a naturalised citizen of their citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is conducive to the public good as that person has conducted themselves in a manner prejudicial to British interests.
We accept that there can be a problem with those who become naturalised British citizens as adults and then abuse that right and may not even live in the UK, but there are serious questions, including those about the impact on national and international security, that must be addressed as it is a very extensive and significant power to give to a Secretary of State. We will table an amendment that this clause should include judicial oversight.
Our approach to this Bill will be to support sensible, practical measures. We will question those measures that appear ill thought out, unworkable or place disproportionate burdens on law-abiding citizens without seriously addressing the real problems. We will suggest improvements where we consider the measures proposed are fundamentally flawed and we will propose new measures that really could help tackle problems of illegal immigration. I hope that the Government will listen.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, is there any area of policy more prone to misinformation and misrepresentation than immigration? As the Minister said, one of our tasks in looking at the Bill will be to be clear what it is and is not about. We also have a number of other objectives, including scrutinising and questioning the whole spectrum from probing to opposition and from seeking assurances on issues of concern to ensuring that what we end up with is workable in practice. I suggest that we have another objective, which is to provide leadership on the issue of immigration. I say that because immigration is so often a proxy for xenophobia and discrimination and it behoves us to argue for what we regard as morally right and to concern ourselves also with why the subject of immigration provokes such intense reactions. We need to unpack what underlies the hostility and sometimes the fear.
It appears that although very many people say that immigration is a problem, far fewer regard it as a problem in their own area. There is considerable overestimating of the numbers of migrants, and of the numbers of migrants claiming benefits, so leadership must include bringing reality and perception a great deal closer. One of the realities is the enormous benefit Britain derives, and has derived, from migration. I have always disliked the term “brightest and best”, because it implies some sort of narrow limited categories, but I am in no doubt that migration is important for Britain’s success. In an interconnected world, Britain will be best placed as a country of one society but many cultures. So I abhor some of the rhetoric that we hear, and am distressed by some of the messages taken from that rhetoric.
This is one of those Bills where it is impossible at this stage to cover, or even refer to, all of the issues. Nor is it possible to do justice to the considerable amount of briefing that we have all received. Through the medium of Hansard I say to all those who have contacted us that not repeating their points does not mean that they are ignored. The detail will come in the days to follow, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues—there are 12 or 13 of them—will be among those who will deal with different issues both today and during the course of our debates. As so often, it is the practice as well as the policy which is important. Your Lordships have already touched on this. We know that the Government are well aware of the importance of improving the standard of service—because it is a service—as well as the mechanics of border control and all aspects of immigration.
I do not imagine that it is a lot of fun working in the Immigration Service. Upskilling, and recognition of the professionalism needed, could go towards better decision-making. We require immigration officers to deal with high volumes, high stakes and constantly changing rules. Every noble Lord will have heard tales of poor decisions which have caused at best, delay; at worst, considerable distress and injustice. Capturing useful and accurate data is obviously important in itself and because of the misperceptions to which I have referred. It will take a while for exit checks to give a full picture of who is here, who is leaving and what they have done in the mean time. This is not least because people’s activities change over the years. However I very much welcome the progress on this score.
The presentation of data is also important. Student numbers, we know, will be an issue. I am one who regards the education sector as a very important export. We import students, but we export contacts, networks and reputation. We are required, internationally, to include students in the overall numbers, but I understand from discussion with the Minister that we publish student numbers separately. Those in a position to be clear about immigration do not seem to be energetic in trying to ensure the disaggregation of the figures. The disaggregated figures do not get the media coverage which would help us all.
Still on the theme of reality and perception, one point I want to make on health charges is the importance of not deterring people from seeking care and treatment to which they are entitled. This is because the message is inaccurate. The headline is the levy. This is a comparatively small charge, not requiring complicated administration, and is a good deal lower than any insurance premium than I have ever come across. But we need to look at what the entitlements are, at fairness and effectiveness, including ensuring accessibility for vulnerable individuals, and public health concerns. Migrants do not usually fit neatly into a couple of easily dealt with categories, and the most vulnerable, the most in need of healthcare, are likely to be the most easily deterred from seeking it.
Early proposals for the health service were cumbersome, bureaucratic and thought likely to give rise to more problems than solutions. It is fair to say that the Bill has gone a long way towards giving assurances on all of this—indeed there have been changes in the progress of this. But it is also fair to say that we have a way to go on giving reassurances regarding residential tenancies. I welcome the piloting of the provisions—and I do mean a pilot—with evaluation and assessment, not simply the first phase of a predetermined rollout. I would be interested to see how the nationwide pilot to which the noble Baroness referred would work. Evaluation must extend to the unintended consequences, which may easily mean driving underground people who are too easily exploited.
There is a lot in this Bill for our lawyers and for everyone concerned with human rights to get their teeth into—and there are some real terriers among them. I have long thought that an immigration system that requires so much legal assistance is not a good one. Greater simplicity and clarity must be desirable, but whether the change to the appeals system falls on the right side of the line is something that we will have to test. To me, it is logical to use review rather than appeal if review gets the job done—assuming that it is not properly done in the first place. But we need to understand how administrative review is both different from and better than the current arrangements. I note, of course, that appeals currently achieve a very high success rate, which must say something. We will discuss, too, out-of-country appeals. It must be more difficult to ensure justice when communication is more difficult. The rationale for changing the appeals regime is to rationalise and simplify it, which is not the same as reducing rights.
I am quite sure that the Bill will not do the courts out of a job. Some of the rhetoric around this that I find offensive is the criticism of lawyers—but perhaps I would say that. I do not want to go too far in questioning the phrase in the new clause on deprivation of citizenship,
“seriously prejudicial to vital interests”.
I had thought “vital” was about life and very existence, but I shall not question that too closely because I do not want to suggest lowering the threshold for executive decisions when innocence is not presumed. As well as the central proposition we will want to understand the consequences of such decisions for the individual and his family, both legally and practically, and how the decision will make the individual less of a threat.
There are many areas where humanitarian and cost considerations coincide, and immigration detention is one of them. I was intrigued to read of the Swedish model, based on engagement rather than enforcement, with apparently a very high rate of voluntary return and financial savings. On the theme of what is right, I look forward to statutory provisions regarding child detention. I want to put on record how impressed I was when I visited Cedars by the obvious good work undertaken there by Barnardo’s, which has my admiration for having taken that work on. It cannot have been an easy decision for that charity. This House can be relied on to concern itself with everything that affects children.
My final topic for today concerns both children and adults. The Minister will not be surprised that I take the opportunity of the Bill to raise again the family migration rules introduced in 2012 with new financial thresholds for sponsoring the entry of non-EEA partners and elderly dependants. There is an extraordinary range of circumstances in which British citizens and taxpayers have found themselves, maintaining relationships through Skype, if they can, and the impact on children separated from parents would defy even those who feared the worst when the rules were introduced.
People who come to our country do not fit a single picture. The irregular migrant population is a very diverse group. Some are in low-paid occupations in the informal economy, while some contribute far more to the UK economy through labour, taxes and spending than they take out in services. Who are illegal immigrants, of course, begs the question of what we choose to make illegal.
This may not be a Bill that either coalition partner would have chosen if left to itself, but I end by repeating that, on this multifaceted area of policy, the reputation of the UK—whom it welcomes and whom it protects, including the indigenous population—as well as the language and rhetoric that it uses are at stake.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, my contribution to this debate covers simply the issue of a requirement, set out in Chapter 1 of Part 3, on landlords to make immigration checks of their tenants. As has already been noted, there is widespread anxiety that the outcome will be entirely unsatisfactory from the perspective of tenants, landlords and the Government themselves. I feel on very safe ground in pursuing this matter, since I note that the criticism of landlord-led immigration checks comes with equal emphasis from organisations representing landlords and representing tenants, and from those taking an overview from both perspectives. I am grateful to the Residential Landlords Association, the National Housing Federation, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for their briefings.
There is a series of dangers and hazards in giving landlords these new responsibilities. Many private sector landlords will turn away legal migrants because they do not want the hassle and delay of having to make these extra checks. As I understand it, it will not be an offence simply to fail to check someone’s status, but only to fail to check the status of someone subsequently discovered to be an illegal immigrant. So if the potential tenant is very obviously not a migrant, no extra checking will be carried out. Many landlords will play safe and avoid all applicants who just might be migrants, including the legitimate ones. Indeed, UK citizens without a passport—not an uncommon position for those on low incomes—may be rejected by landlords not wishing to take any chances.
Already we know that nearly three-quarters of all landlords will not let to anyone in receipt of benefits. So this measure means even greater pressure on vulnerable tenants, many of whom are likely to end up with the exploitative landlords who all of us want to see driven out of business but who will ignore the law on this, as on many other counts. Last November, I joined police and local authority staff in Newham on a number of “raids” on properties where it was suspected that landlords were in breach of the law. I witnessed shocking conditions of overcrowding, breaches of health and safety regulations, and exorbitant rents for appalling conditions. Most of the landlords in this borough own just one property and, unsurprisingly, many are woefully ignorant of landlord-tenant law. One has to question whether this is a reliable group on whom the Government can depend for implementation of their immigration policies.
Good landlords, who have a reputation to maintain, will do their best to do what is right, but is it reasonable to add this regulatory burden to their workload? The Minister makes comparisons with the task given to employers, but this argument has some flaws. The UK Border Agency’s guidance to employers is 89 pages long; little wonder it is not always followed by small firms. The private rented sector is very much like the smallest of SME businesses, with nearly 2 million landlords agreeing 3 million new tenancies each year. Checking entitlement to work is easier than checking entitlement to residence. The sheer logistics are daunting. The Government’s consultation document lists 20 typical documents that landlords might expect to be familiar with. Perhaps as significantly, employers are not required to check on the status of other members of the employee’s household, but landlords will be expected to check out the immigration position of other family members and anyone else in the household, even though the landlord has no direct legal relationship with these people—hence the criticism that this is simply getting landlords to become UKBA agents.
Problems are particularly acute in shared accommodation let to several tenants with joint liability. In such cases, there is likely to be a fairly rapid turnover of tenants, and given that those moving in will usually be chosen by those already there, landlords will find it extraordinarily difficult to check the status of new tenants. Such are the greater obligations and pressures on landlords compared with employers: and we all know the hazards for employers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has already drawn attention.
The measures will also place extra burdens on local authorities, which will have responsibility for carrying out checks where they nominate the tenants to housing associations or send homeless families to private landlords. Demands on them to act as the point of referral and accept the immigration checking role seem certain to grow. The National Housing Federation raises another concern: tenants are to be given the job of checking on lodgers and may find that role at least as difficult as would a landlord.
All in all, I would echo the call for a proper pilot scheme to establish the viability of this policy idea. It needs to be established that this really is likely to be an effective measure before it is applied to nearly 2 million landlords.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I am happy to declare an interest in this debate as the Bishop of Leicester, a city whose character, economy, culture and vibrancy have all been immensely enhanced by waves of immigration over the last 40 years. At last year’s 40th anniversary of the arrival of the Ugandan Asians expelled from east Africa by Idi Amin, we were reminded of an advertisement placed by Leicester City Council in 1973. It read:
“In your own interests and those of your family you should accept the advice of the Uganda Resettlement Board and not come to Leicester”.
It led to a headline in the Leicester Mercury: “No room here”. It is a reminder that general anxiety about immigration and the fears of politicians about public opinion on this matter are not new.
Thankfully, the Ugandan Asians ignored that advice and the city has become a beacon of good practice in which several thousand persecuted people were enabled to establish themselves in a short time without becoming any drain on public resources. The Ugandan Asians set an historic example to many other minorities who have followed and established a vibrant international network which has immensely benefited our city and our country.
We recognise that it is in the interest of the United Kingdom as a nation, and indeed it is right and proper, to control movement across borders. We recognise the rights to sovereignty of nation states and, as Christians, see the roots of this in the biblical record and the Judaeo-Christian tradition. However, this tradition also recognises clear obligations on the part of the nation state to all those who are within its borders. Many Christians would go further than this and affirm a positive duty of welcome to the stranger, recognising that, if justice is to be done, it must allow for the variety of needs and claims which people coming to the United Kingdom may present, not least in the circumstances associated with human trafficking, exploitation or domestic abuse. The needs of those vulnerable to these and other forms of oppression and deprivation will always be high in the priorities of this Bench.
On these two principles, I base a number of brief concerns about the Bill. First, Part 1 has wide-ranging implications for the safety and welfare of the thousands of children referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Government have said that the Bill is designed to encourage people who do not have a legal right to be in the United Kingdom to go home. However, we know that, for many children, returning home is not an option. There are an estimated 120,000 undocumented children living in the UK; the majority were born here and many will have spent their formative years in this country. This is the only home they know and they will have no lasting links or support networks in their parents’ country of origin. Many of these children will already be at risk of destitution and social exclusion. It seems clear that the environment for undocumented migrant children in the United Kingdom, and their ability to have their legal claims to remain considered fairly, will substantially deteriorate.
Secondly, I want to touch on Part 2 of the Bill in relation to appeals. The range of grounds for appeal which the courts are permitted to consider is reduced dramatically here, as courts can no longer consider whether a decision was wrong, contrary to domestic law or regulations, or discriminatory. Those unhappy with an immigration decision will have recourse to an administrative review within the Home Office. However, the scope for lodging an appeal to prevent removal is narrowed severely in the Bill, and it is very rarely practicable for a person to pursue an appeal from abroad following removal. Indeed, the restrictions that the Government are placing on legal aid and on judicial reviews elsewhere are likely to work together with the measures in this Bill to severely limit access to justice. The sheer number of current appeals may lead to a feeling that this flood must be stemmed, but the remarkably high success rate of appeals surely puts paid to any suspicion that they are generally unfounded.
Thirdly, the Bill raises a question about the administrative process and its present effectiveness. The Home Office’s figures show that 49% of managed migration appeals, 50% of entry clearance appeals and 32% of appeals against deportation are allowed. The decision-making process within the Home Office clearly does not stand up to scrutiny. Can we be at all confident that an internal review system will serve the cause of justice as well as an independent appeal mechanism?
Further, there are serious concerns generally about access to services. The Bill draws new boundaries in terms of access to a home, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences. Migrant children and young people are an especially vulnerable group in relation to healthcare. The experience of torture, violence, exploitation and abuse that many children will have suffered will have been exacerbated by disrupted healthcare systems, passage through refugee camps or other experiences leading to long and painful journeys to the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government propose to protect vulnerable, undocumented migrant children from new National Health Service charges, which they would be unable to pay and which could well dissuade them from seeking vital services?
Those concerns intensify the impression that asylum seekers, especially those who are undocumented but cannot be removed from the United Kingdom, will become an excluded group in an increasingly twilight world. The impact of all this is to contribute to a society that is divided into a country within a country, where those within the scope of civic entitlement are divided from those who are excluded from it, with social exclusion institutionalised in law. The Bill appears not just to police a border around our country but to erect many new boundaries within our society.
Finally, I want to speak about the provisions in Part 4 relating to marriage and civil partnership. We recognise that the strategic intention of this part of the Bill is to prevent the use of “sham marriage” to enable people to gain immigration status while circumventing the proper criteria. This is bound to create some conflict of principle for those of us who are Anglicans. The church, of course, wishes to offer the sacrament of marriage, reflecting the generous grace of God, and not to raise barriers on the basis of nationality. On the other hand, we are acutely aware of the dangers of sham marriage, including harm to individuals and to the very institution of marriage. We cannot know for certain the level of sham marriages presently taking place in churches, although there is some evidence that the bishops’ guidelines issued in 2011 have considerably improved the situation. There is no official Church of England position on this matter. Officials have worked with the Government to design processes which might work in law and in practice if the aims and general approach of the clause are accepted. However, it leaves open the question of whether this change is necessary or desirable.
There is genuine concern here that relationships between British residents and non-EAA nationals are now to be seen through a prism of mistrust which sends a dangerous message about mixed relationships in a diverse and multiethnic society. The Government’s impact statement claims that 2,500 removals from the UK will be generated in the first year by this provision alone. This will doubtless cause a large amount of stress, pain and anxiety to many genuine couples. It will also undoubtedly mean that the Government seek to remove and separate engaged couples whose marital plans are sincere. Even for those who do not face removal from the country at the end of the investigation process, it will be a stressful experience. A moment which should be a happy and fulfilling time in any person’s life has the potential to turn into a period of intense stress and pain.
We on this Bench recognise that illegal immigration is in the interests neither of social cohesion nor of those many migrants who make such an outstanding contribution to this country. However, we also recognise that there is a balance of social goods to be weighed. Many of the provisions in this Bill run the risk of generating serious concern, anxiety and tension among our diverse migrant communities. That may play well in parts of the press, but it will not be in the long-term interests of social cohesion in cities such as my own. In a global world where the drivers of migration are constantly strengthened, we need to ensure that this Bill does not erode our reputation for being a just and welcoming society upon which the prosperity and well-being of all citizens of this country depend.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I echo the final words of the right reverend Prelate.
I wish to begin by expressing my personal sadness at the news that Mark Harper has had to resign. I think he has done the right thing, but I was pleased to see that both sides of the House expressed admiration for his work as a Minister. I am very sorry to see him go. I commend James Brokenshire, the new Minister, for paying this House the courtesy of listening to the opening speeches in this debate.
I have never spoken in an immigration debate before in either House. This is a Second Reading so I am not going to enter into any detailed discussion on particular items that will obviously come up in Committee, but I think that we have to recognise that this country is an increasingly attractive island in a world that is suffering significant convulsions, be they economic or political. One has to look no further than Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, most immediately, to see areas where the number of failed states has grown most significantly in recent years.
If I was uncertain about whether to speak, interestingly enough two items on the news this morning covered both points that I wish to address. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, referred to, “Panorama” has apparently identified a further problem of significant fraud, with bogus exams in student visa applications and identity theft among those who wish to prove their financial status. The second item was the Swiss referendum. For many years, Switzerland—a very attractive location for many people—has been faced with the issue of how many people to let into that country. In a national referendum, the Swiss have now voted in favour of quotas, and have decided to move away from the free movement of labour in Europe to which they were previously committed through their agreements with the European Union.
This Immigration Bill is yet another measure seeking to tackle the latest series of devices of one sort and another that have given rise to public concern about ways in which proper immigration controls have been evaded. There has been reference made to sham marriages. There have been references to shed landlords. There is a proposal to restrict the right to request bail which has arisen from the way in which some of the legal processes have been exploited by some immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Then there was the more contentious one about the right to a private family life and the proposal that this should not be an overriding exemption but should have regard to the public interest.
Before we have even dealt with this Bill, the Home Secretary has now promised another Bill, which will deal with human trafficking and modern slavery. That is yet a further indication of the huge pressure from migration and the extraordinary difficulty of effective immigration control.
The noble Baroness asked about the number of illegal migrants in this country. I do not think that anyone at the moment has a clue about that. Of course, the longer that that situation persists, the more damaging it is to public confidence. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we need to preserve in this country a proud tradition of providing shelter for genuine refugees and genuine asylum seekers.
The right reverend Prelate referred to Ugandan Asians. I remember a redundant army camp at Watchet in Somerset in which we welcomed Ugandan Asians and made it available as a first base for them when they came here. It just shows how old I am that I can also remember helping to teach English to Hungarian refugees, who came out of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and found themselves, rather surprisingly, in a redundant TB hospital on the Mendip Hills in Somerset. We have a proud tradition and we should be a free and open society which welcomes visitors and honours, wherever possible, free movement of labour.
Many noble Lords have referred to the benefits of migration, but undoubtedly there is major public concern and I think that that is recognised. I noticed that Yvette Cooper in another place referred to the need for “stronger controls” on immigration and the need for a lot more measures to “tackle illegal immigration”. Mr Ed Balls has said that the unmitigated and unplanned immigration from the European Union, when 5.2 million people were on out-of-work benefits, was a mistake of the previous Labour Government. That is a very honest statement to make. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has given the clear warning that,
“Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/13; col. 167.]
That is clear recognition of the problems we have.
As we bring forward this Bill, with the various measures in it, my noble friend will already recognise some of the problems that he will get. I notice that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has already spoken and identified an area of concern, have mentioned that every one of the things that you might try to do that might help is fraught with difficulties and uncertainties.
When one looks at the world, the old phrase, “The future is not what it used to be”, undoubtedly rings true. In terms of pressure from immigration, people now talk about migration and some go so far as to talk about mass migration. As regards the various ingredients in the world’s situation, it is the duty of noble Lords to look ahead and to see how things may develop. One issue is the population explosion. From 1952-53, I served in Kenya when its population was 5 million. It is now 36 million. That increase in population is reflected in other parts of Africa. The problems of climate change are making certain areas virtually uninhabitable. I have referred to the quantum leap in the number of failed states.
Another issue is globalisation and the ease of communication. As we see in the interesting report on today’s front page of the Times, social media are being used by Syrian jihadists, and they are also being used by those involved in human trafficking and by illegal immigrants. Those involved may quickly communicate where there may be a loophole or some opportunity. That makes the problem much more difficult to tackle. It is not just about Somalis, Yemenis, Iraqis or Syrians or any people who have many reasons for wishing to leave their countries; there is the issue of eastern Europe, which has already been discussed. Then you even get to the point that London is now the sixth largest French city in world. This is the movement of people with the challenges it poses.
I notice that my right honourable friend Nick Clegg has said that we should be generous and open-hearted but hard-headed. We can maintain our position as a generous, open-hearted country only if the people in our country believe that we have a system that is under control and effective. That is why it is important to deal with abuses and fraud, even with the difficulties they produce.
I referred earlier to Switzerland. I think that the issue of free movement of labour is inevitably going to be discussed much more frequently. As I have said before in this House, at the time that we joined, the European Community of six became a Community of nine. At that time, I represented the United Kingdom as Secretary of State for Employment on the Council of Ministers. To try to transfer without alteration the rules that were fixed for nine countries to 28 different countries—with Ukraine and Turkey perhaps being added to the list—will pose challenges. We may say that we must maintain our tolerance and generosity of spirit, but I think that it will pose major challenges for our people.
The noble Baroness opening for the Opposition made the point very clearly about national and international security and the importance of an effective immigration control. One reads the reports today about the amount of jihadists that apparently have been identified as having moved into Syria, which is becoming not a university of crime—as they used to say about Long Kesh in my time—but in effect a university for terrorism. We have to be very careful indeed to ensure that we have effective control there.
When the various measures are discussed in Committee, I hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will bear in mind the importance of ensuring that we come out of it with a system that gives the public confidence that, in this dangerous and uncertain world, we are determined to maintain effective immigration control so that our country’s tradition of a generous welcome can be properly maintained.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
I will perhaps bring a slightly different perspective to a debate that has raised a number of key issues thus far. I hope that we can, by an act of the imagination, put ourselves alongside the people who have either recently arrived here from other places or who find themselves here illegally. They are all people, whichever category they fall into. In my daily work I meet them in all sorts of conditions. My team and I, where we have judged it appropriate, have brought it to the attention of people who are here illegally that they are so and have helped them, largely with the help of the Refugee Council, to find an appropriate and humane way to go home. In other cases, we have worked very hard with people—who just do not understand the complexity of the process and cannot always find lawyers in whom they have trust—to pick their way one step at a time through the process. We have stood in court and given character testimony for others.
My finest story concerns someone who was here illegally but was pursuing the matter through the courts. While she was unable to have accommodation or financial support she was named volunteer of the year for the Borough of Islington for the work she did in our local school. She was also called for jury service. When she said to me, “Reverend, they have asked me to go on a jury, what should I do?”—she was here illegally—I said, “Go do it, girl. Go do it”.
The whole thing is so complex from the point of view of the people affected by it. Beyond those who fall into the categories that I have named thus far are all those people of recent arrival here who know someone or are related to someone in the darker side of these affairs and who are simply torn apart knowing how to act for the best, with loyalties of various kinds weighing heavily on them. If I can—and who am I to do it?—I want to speak as if I were the voice of those who live in this world, are affected by these decisions and are trying as best they can to find their way towards a proper solution of their problems.
In the Bill there are lots of things that will raise people’s fears and create the atmosphere of mistrust that has been referred to, such as the unnecessary checks on migrants seeking rented accommodation, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is as well qualified as anyone in this House to talk about these matters. Other matters include taking out a bank account, driving a car, removing citizenship from naturalised citizens, or imposing charges for prospective use of the NHS. That is fair payment, says the Minister, and not a deterrent. But it does not always feel like that at the other end. The analysis is a fair one, but perception and feeling on the part of those affected by the decisions is a fair point to raise as well.
The Secretary of State’s ability to remove an individual from the United Kingdom before his appeal is heard is another one. The Minister mentioned how appropriate it is to remove citizenship from someone who has taken up arms against Britain. That is quite right. But at the moment I am dealing with a case of someone who took up arms for Britain. For the past 16 months, he has been in detention—having served several years, including in Afghanistan—seeking the right to remain in this country. The Minister talks about those who come illegally and undercut the local labour market. Again, that is quite right. But I am also dealing with those who exploit the illegal migrant to pay illegally low wages. There is a complex picture that must not be oversimplified. These are real lives lived on real streets by real people. I hope that we will keep that angle of view before us as we pursue the debates that will preoccupy us over the next several weeks.
I am the president of the Boys’ Brigade, a very noble and worthy young people’s movement. Last summer was the 50th anniversary of the Global Fellowship, which unites Boys’ Brigade movements around the world in many countries. We were going to have a jamboree at the headquarters in Hemel Hempstead and we had it in mind to have 150 or 200 people come from various places. But more than half of those we wanted to come were refused visas. Why? Because the boxes that were ticked as they applied for visas made it evident to those who had it in their power to grant the visas that they were not earning enough or secure enough in their places of work back home in these other countries. They thought that these people were really trying to slip into Britain to do all the dastardly things that we think these migrants are up to.
Similarly, I chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haiti. Four years ago, there was an earthquake there of terrible proportions. Working with a number of NGOs and other well minded bodies, I was desperate to bring to this country people who could give us eyewitness accounts and help the British public better understand the plight of the country they came from. Once again, we simply could not get the visas because the people we were inviting were agriculturalists being paid $150 a month. Back home that is secure enough, but here, it is suggested that they wanted to escape from $150 a month in order to earn a jolly sight more at our expense. These are the feelings that prevail on the ground by ordinary people in the communities where the problems and the proper needs of the nation that we are talking about are to be played and acted out.
I will say one last word to pick up a point made a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord King, about the convulsions in the world in which we live. I cannot think how, but I had in my hands a copy of the Daily Mail—in my trade, confession is something that we believe in. There was a story splashed widely across its pages about the floods at the moment in the convulsed part of the world of the noble Lord, Lord King, and that we should be taking money our of the “bloated” DfID account to put into the relief we might offer the victims of floods across the land.
We must see a bigger picture than the one we are looking at now and congratulate the Government on maintaining the levels of support for overseas aid. It is by bringing better governance and more secure instruments of state to bear in poor and fragile countries that we will diminish the motivation for people to come out of their countries into other places. We must see the bigger picture.
It sounds like boasting when I talk about all the things I do, but my work on Haiti, under the aegis of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, includes bringing a delegation of Haitian parliamentarians here in the autumn, with the likelihood of them reciprocating. At the request of the Haitian Parliament, we seek to increase capacity for a parliamentary style of government in Haiti, which has not really known it: our Parliament with their Parliament. I promise Members of this House that the work we do of that kind, with its long-term outcomes, will benefit all of us who are preoccupied with the number of people who feel obliged to leave their native heath. I plead with your Lordships to keep the bigger picture in mind and feel the heart that beats in the communities affected by these proposals.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, immigration features high on the agenda of all political parties. It has become one of the biggest public policy debates in recent times. It will also be one of the major issues that will dominate the general election in 2015. Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effects of various immigration and asylum legislation in the past, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious.
I do not dispute that all major political parties subscribe to fair and just immigration policies and procedures. The policy is to admit those who are eligible and to exclude, subject to the appropriate humanitarian principles, those who are not. However, the greater the emphasis on excluding the ineligible, the tougher are the rules introduced by successive Governments; and the more intensive these checks are and the more complicated they are to introduce, the more there is delay, denial and expense to those who are eligible. Is it any wonder that a culture develops over time where administrators are expected to deliver targets and results which often lack fairness and justice in the process?
Let me make it clear: we on this side of the coalition do not condone illegal immigration. We do not condone entry by those who do not qualify to be here. What I ask of the Government is to proclaim at the highest level the contribution that migrants make to the British economy. We need a shift in priorities towards greater emphasis on the rights of those who are eligible to enter the United Kingdom. It is time we stopped playing the numbers game and based our policies on the needs of our country.
Of course, it is right that migration policies take into account Britain's national interest, both economically and socially, and we must always put the safety and security of our citizens at the top of the agenda. There is no dispute about that, but we should avoid the temptation to ratchet up the system for political expediency. We must respond to the changes around us. The economy is no longer national, it is global.
Let me make one point. Whose brilliant idea was it to roll out immigration vans around our cities asking people to leave the country? The Home Secretary has recently admitted that that had not been such a good idea. I am not sure what the returns were, but little regard was paid to the hurt feelings of a large number of our diverse community lawfully settled in this country. I ask my noble friend to tell your Lordships’ House how many migrants returned as a direct result of that publicity. I am sure that the returns were not worth the cost of petrol used by the vans in our cities.
Have we reached the stage in this country when one has to carry one’s passport as proof of identity? The debate on immigration is so skewed that during Second Reading and Report in the House of Commons, not a single Member of Parliament outlined the benefits of immigration.
Let me declare my interests here. I am one of the vice-chairs of Migration Matters, a body ably chaired by Barbara Roche, the former Home Office Minister. It is a cross-party body that has done much to bring sanity to the ongoing debate on immigration. We have long believed that without a clear view of how immigration benefits Britain, it is difficult to understand the danger of indiscriminately cutting immigration or discouraging migrants from coming to the United Kingdom.
Let me spell out the three key benefits for Britain from properly managed migration. The first relates to skills. Britain’s public and private sectors need migrants’ skills. Figures from the Health and Care Social Information Centre show that more than one in four of NHS doctors are migrants. Without immigration, our health service would suffer. In industry, according to the CBI, we have major gaps in sectors such as engineering and IT. Without immigration, our firms would not be able to operate successfully or compete globally.
The second benefit relates to growth. Migrants’ contribution is essential for growth and reduces our debt. For example, the largest single group of migrants each year is international students. They make up almost 40% of new migrants and, according to the Government, contribute £18 billion in fees. This funds hundreds of jobs across the country, boosting tax revenues and reducing our debts.
The third benefit relates to investment. Investment in Britain by foreign businesses is worth billions of pounds to the UK economy. That is responsible for thousands of jobs. Do we really want to pass on a message that Britain is closed to business? Do we want to endanger that investment?
We ought to be clear. No one owes us a living. Either we remain as Little Englanders, or we play a full part in the global economy. The dangers of skewed public debate in the past few months are obvious. It has been characterised by hysteria and hyperbole, which makes rational discussion extremely difficult. The debate has been driven by UKIP in the run-up to the relaxation of transitional controls on Romanians and Bulgarians.
The Home Office is yet to produce any figures. No wonder UKIP is peddling figures which bear no resemblance to reality. UKIP leaflets claiming that 28 million Romanians and Bulgarians can now come to Britain have been pushed through letter boxes in Kent in the past few months. The reality and the evidence suggest that immigration from those countries will be moderate. I trust that the Minister will enlighten us with reliable statistics, so that we can nail such lies. The danger of such a toxic debate is that it sends a hostile signal to the rest of the world—in particular, to international investors, students and skilled workers, who boost Britain’s economy by billions of pounds each year—that we no longer need or want their contribution.
There are aspects of the Bill which we welcome. Then there are areas of concern which will require probing amendment in Committee. My noble friend the Minister commands great respect in this House, and I am sure he will listen to arguments that we will advance at that stage. Our purpose is to avoid the shambles we saw in the other place. We welcome the provision to deal with sham marriages and sham civil partnerships and will support further legislative changes to eradicate these practices, which are designed to evade immigration controls.
The Bill proposes a new referral and investigation scheme for proposed marriages and civil partnerships involving a non-EEA national subject to immigration controls. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that this does not solve the problem of a non-EEA national’s entering into a sham relationship in an EEA country? Has the Home Office discussed this matter with our European partners? The Home Office has no powers to prevent such marriages taking place in these countries, and no powers to deny entry to the UK if the couple decides to settle here. Will the Minister reflect on this and advise how he will deal with such arrangements?
We also welcome the provision of a statutory code of conduct and registration with the Immigration Services Commissioner by providers of immigration advice. The exploitation of clients by unscrupulous advisers is a matter of serious concern. While a code of registration applies to those providing such services in the United Kingdom, it does nothing to stop such practices abroad. Surely this is a matter that should be the basis of bilateral discussion whenever Ministers are on delegation abroad.
Then there is the serious issue in Part 6 to amend powers to deprive persons of British citizenship. We need to clarify how such powers are going to be used against those who do not have dual nationality. Will the Minister explain how a stateless person would leave the country? Where would he or she go? I note that this provision would affect only a small number of British citizens, and the matter is still a work in progress. It is right, however, that terrorists whose activities affect the safety and security of our nation should be dealt with by the full force of the law. We need to spell out if such a person has any residual and consequential rights similar to those of refugees and other stateless persons. The last thing we need, when we deprive citizens of citizenship, is for this to be used as a badge of honour by jihadis who cannot be deported. There are other issues which colleagues reflect upon. For the present, the Government have a golden opportunity to raise the level of debate on immigration matters. Let us hope that we will give a lead that will result in a fair and just immigration policy.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, over the past weeks, I have received numerous requests by journalists from around the world because one of the seven schools that I attended was the Hyderabad Public School. The 46-year-old chief executive officer of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, also attended the Hyderabad Public School. He then went to the United States for his education and is now heading one of the world’s largest companies, with a market cap of $340 billion.
Earlier this afternoon, I attended a talk by the Governor-General of Canada, David Johnston. A huge part of his speech was about education and about Canada wanting to attract the best students from around the world. Like me, he came as a foreign student to Cambridge to read law. Is it not sad that, on 16 January, the Times Higher Education Supplement carried the headline “Overseas student total falls ‘for first time’ as Indian numbers collapse”? It went further and stated that,
“the number of non-EU students at UK universities fell by 1 per cent last year, the first such decline ever recorded”.
An NUS survey of more than 3,000 international students conducted in January found that 51% of non-EU students thought the UK Government unwelcoming. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Government aim to double the number of international students in Canadian educational institutions by 2022, raising the total to 450,000 yearly. In Australia, more than 74,000 student visa applications were lodged in the September 2013 quarter, 7.1% higher than the same period in 2012 and the highest for this quarter in the past four years. In France, the Government have moved to simplify the visa application process and to double the number of Indian students studying at French universities. Does the Minister have a target for increasing the number of foreign students in the UK, let alone of Indian students?
The Russell group has reported that the intakes of postgraduate students from India at its institutions dropped by 21% in 2011-12, with a further drop of 18% in 2012-13. Even the growth rate in new students from China has started to taper off. Meanwhile, postgraduate student numbers to the United States increased by 40% in 2013. Visas granted to Indian students across all levels in Australia have risen by 22% in the past year, following the introduction of a more open immigration policy, and visas granted to Indian students in Canada rose by 8% in 2012.
The Prime Minister talks about Britain having to take part in a global race yet the Government’s insistence is on following this madcap immigration cap policy and targeting bringing down the immigration level to the tens of thousands. This is shooting ourselves in the foot. What are the Government thinking of? Why do the Government keep including student numbers in the immigration figures when Canada, Australia and the United States—our immediate competitors—do not? Does the Minister agree that we should exclude foreign student numbers from the immigration figures? The Government might then hit their target but they should not do it for that reason: they should do it because this policy is sending out the wrong messages. The Prime Minister has said that there is no limit to the number of students that we want to come to study in the United Kingdom—I have heard him say that myself—so why are the Government not following the example of our counterparts in Canada and setting a target to double the number of foreign students coming into the United Kingdom?
In contrast, let us look at what is happening over here. The number of Indian students has fallen by 25% and the overall non-EU enrolment of overseas students has dropped from 173,560 to 171,910. The Government are sending out a negative message: that Britain does not want foreign students. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the perception of reality. The perception has become reality and the Government have been bringing out ridiculous ideas. When the idea of a £3,000 bond for foreign visitors was floated, it did not take long before the Government backtracked. However, it sent shockwaves around the world. I kept getting asked about this on every visit to India. Then the Government had the amazing idea of having vans going around the UK saying “Illegal immigrants go home”. I do not like quoting Nigel Farage but even he—a man perceived to be entirely anti-immigration—said:
“I think the actual tone of the billboards is nasty, unpleasant, Big Brother”.
There you have it.
There is no question that a lot needs to be done to reform immigration in this country. Illegal immigration is out of control. The noble Lord, Lord King, asked whether we know the numbers. Have we lost control of our borders? I think we have. The UK Border Agency was not fit for purpose and has been disbanded. Can the Government tell us the number of illegal immigrants in this country? I will let the Government round it up to the nearest 100,000 but I bet that they could not even give a figure. They do not even know whether it is half a million or a million. The coalition Government have given a manifesto commitment to reintroduce exit controls and there is matter in the Bill to address this. However, the Government should bring in mandatory scanning of all passports when people leave this country—whether they are British, EU or non-EU—and scan them when they come in. The technology is there for us to know who has come in, who has left and who has stayed when they should not be staying. We could then control illegal immigration. Why are the Government not doing that? The e-Borders programme is a step towards that but we could get to that step right now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the Government are right to crack down on sham marriages, but they are wrong to bring in landlord controls and ask the landlords to do the job of the border authority. Even the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mark Harper, could not find out the status of his own cleaner when he had tried hard to do so. This is impractical and I fear that it will be another government U-turn.
The proposed NHS fees are unwelcoming. As a former foreign student in this country, I know how expensive it is to study here. The average international student will spend something in the region of £75,000 during a three-year degree programme. A PhD student coming in with a spouse and children could pay thousands of pounds in advance for this. These fees will seem like a penalty charge and could be a powerful disincentive. In a survey carried out by the National Union of Students, 74% of the non-EU students surveyed, who would be subject to the charge, said that an additional charge of £150 per year of study would make it more difficult or impossible for them to study in the UK. The Minister said that the figure is only 1%, but the perception, unfortunately, is the reality. More than 82% of those with dependants say that free access to the NHS was important in their choice to study in the UK. The current visa fees are really expensive in any case and the Government have just announced a 40% increase for some additional family members. Why do we need NHS charges? Most students are young and healthy and do not use the NHS much. The Government have been penny wise and pound foolish.
On the matter of the appeals process and the changes proposed in this Bill, Universities UK notes that more than 50% of appeals by students are successful. If these measures are brought in they will be deprived. In the House in 2007 I initiated a debate on the two-year post-study work visa. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was the Education Minister answering at the time. He listened, the Government responded, it was brought in and we saw international student numbers go up. Even the Business Secretary disagrees with government policy on this. Vince Cable has said that around £17 billion is generated each year by universities, £10 billion of which comes from overseas students through their fees and expenditure. At last year’s Liberal Democrat party conference he warned that a lot of students who would normally come to Britain would go instead to America and Australia where they thought a “warmer welcome” would be given to them.
If students here want to work after this expensive education it is important for them to be able to pay for it, gain work experience, pay some taxes, and build the generation-long links with this country and their countries—and on the whole they go back to them. Three generations of my family have studied in this country. Moosung Lee, a PhD candidate at the University of Minnesota, notes that 27% of world leaders have been educated in the United States. The Americans are streets ahead of us. We are missing out as a result of this and we need to start thinking long term. Shutting down the bogus colleges was good, but we do not need to create a perception that what was true for them is true for our good universities as well.
My recommendations are as follows. First, student figures should be removed from the immigration figures to send out a clear message that we do not include them in the Government’s madcap immigration cap target. Secondly, a system in which everyone’s passports will be scanned in and out of the country, at all ports of entry, should be introduced as soon as possible. Thirdly, the Government should bring back the post-study work visa. The mechanism at the moment is not fit for purpose. Can the Minister tell me how many graduates have taken up work after they have graduated under the new scheme that the Government have initiated? Fourthly, NHS charges for students should not be brought in. Students are spending huge amounts of money here already. A fee of £150 a year is a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish. Fifthly, the Government should scrap the ridiculous and impractical idea of landlords having to make checks on foreign nationals and especially students. Landlords are not immigration officials. Finally, the Government should reform the appeals process that is already flawed. They should not be bringing in a system that will make it worse. Already 50% of appeals by students are successful.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, Britain is a most amazingly fair and just country. London is the most cosmopolitan city in the world. Recently, I led a debate to mark the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe to ask Her Majesty’s Government how they have recognised and supported the role and contribution of faith and minority communities in Britain during Her Majesty’s reign. All of us who spoke in that debate were able to give scores of examples of the amazing contribution that immigrants have given to this country. We would not be where we are without the contribution of immigration. On the other hand, we know that people abuse this country’s generosity and the Government must clamp down on those excesses. However, the Government now have a system that creates negative perceptions and unfortunately those perceptions have become reality. The Government must stop going down this path before it is too late and this wonderful country is permanently damaged.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I declare an interest as a member of the Council of University College London.
Many aspects of the Bill have already been subject to debate today. I want to concentrate on its impact on overseas students, an aspect that the noble Lord touched on. I heard the Minister’s assurance today, but I have been unhappy with the direction of travel of government policy towards overseas students throughout the past few years and believe that the Bill exacerbates the impact of previous policies. Of course, nothing in what I say is designed to condone fraud of the kind uncovered in today’s “Panorama” programme, which the noble Lord, Lord King, referred to. I shall be drawing in particular on the briefings of both Universities UK and the National Union of Students, which are united in their views on the adverse impact of the Bill.
First, however, I join others in expressing my sympathy and regret at the honourable resignation of Mark Harper as Immigration Minister. I always found him extremely painstaking and courteous in carrying out his role. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, pointed out, this shows the difficulties inherent even among the most scrupulous people in complying with immigration legislation.
As noble Lords, with all their university links and responsibilities, will be well aware, international students in higher education alone contributed more than £10 billion to the UK economy in 2011-12, according to BIS. Their contribution to the local economies of university cities is enormous. The UK is the second most popular destination for international students. They are a crucial way for us to build cultural and academic links and to build global trade and investment relations for the future—soft power, in other words. They are a crucial resource for our higher education institutions and the UK as a whole yet, as UUK points out, new figures show that the total number of international students in UK universities fell for the first time on record by 1% in 2012-13—4.5% if China is excluded from the figures. Our share of a growing market is falling. We have yet to understand the precise causes, but many of us in this House have been warning the Government of the likely consequences of their changes to visa policy, particularly relating to post-study internships. We have already seen a marked reduction in students from India, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has pointed out.
No one quarrels with measures designed to prevent abuse of the immigration system, but if we do not redress the impression that students are not welcome then we will see further reductions from other countries. The key areas where this Bill creates that impression, and bears down counterproductively on overseas students, are threefold. First, there is the removal of visa appeal rights. The removal of their remaining rights of in-country appeal against the refusal of leave to remain is under Clause 11. In 2012-13 there were 98,800 decisions on Tier 4 extensions. Of those, I am informed that around 13% were refused yet, as we heard earlier, 50% of appeals are successful, which means that decisions were not correct in the first place. Sheffield Students’ Union says that 99% of its appeals are successful. It says that many of these decisions relate to family members. The loss of these appeal rights will also affect postgraduates such as academics and researchers.
The new administrative view that is being offered in certain circumstances will not be independent, and in some cases will in fact be carried out by the official who made the original decision. How can that be right? How on earth can overseas students have confidence that these decisions will be reviewed fairly? Surely, as they say, instead of abolishing the right of appeal in this way the Home Office should lay emphasis on improving processes and decision-making so that the number of appeals is reduced. If that is not possible, why can there not be an explicit exception for overseas students?
Then we have Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the provision of services. The Bill introduces a new requirement for landlords to check a prospective tenant’s immigration status, except for halls of residence.
International students already face difficulties in securing accommodation and are often made to pay large advance payments of rent. Bookings of accommodation for students often have to be made well in advance at a time when overseas students cannot prove their immigration status. Landlords will be discouraged from letting accommodation to international students and staff, and they will be relegated to the back of the queue in the search for accommodation.
How can causing this kind of anxiety to young people coming here for the first time be the right way to welcome them? How can this lack of certainty encourage overseas academic staff to come and work in our universities? The fear of the student bodies that have briefed Members of this House is that this will lead to more discrimination against black and ethnic minority students when looking for housing.
Why are additional provisions required for students in the first place? Surely being vouched for by their university when the accommodation is occupied should be enough. After all, the risk of losing highly trusted sponsor status, as the NUS says, means that higher education institutions with virtually no exceptions are scrupulous in their monitoring of overseas students. The Residential Landlords Association and the British Property Federation have pointed out the problems, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, illustrated them in considerable detail. The NUS survey this month showed that 40% of international students believe that these landlord checks will negatively impact on their decision to study in the UK, and the figure was greater in the case of PhD students concerned about their spouse and children.
Last but not least, there is the proposed imposition of NHS charges on overseas students under the Bill. Granted that there will be a lower rate for overseas students under these proposals compared to the full £200 per annum, but why are we charging when, as UUK says, they are already making such a big economic contribution? The charge, it points out, will need to be paid upfront for the full duration of the visa. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, for an academic with a number of dependants, this could be a significant amount of money, far more than in other countries, and a real deterrent to taking up employment here. On its own, charging for NHS services would not necessarily have been a major disincentive, but in combination with other aspects of the Bill, it certainly will be. Indeed, it will take away one of the attractions of coming to the UK. Why cannot overseas students and staff be totally exempt from the charges?
So this is a triple whammy and causes more damage to our reputation. A recent NUS survey of more than 3,000 students conducted this year found that half of non-EU students found the UK Government not welcoming towards them, and the number for postgraduate students was greater. We need to alter the perception that overseas students are not welcome in the UK. As the Minister knows, I and many Members of this House have argued that the inclusion of students in the net migration figures sends out all the wrong signals, especially considering the fact that these students are only temporary migrants. Even if the Home Office does not accept that argument, why can we not exclude overseas students from the provisions of this Bill to prevent further reputational, cultural and economic damage? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Flooding: Somerset
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a response to an Urgent Question made in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
“Mr Speaker, as is evident from the dark skies outside, we continue to face extraordinary and sustained wet weather. COBRA has met every day since my Oral Statement on Thursday with all departments working closely together, including my colleagues at Defra. We have made clear again that every resource is available to the local communities affected. We will keep providing whatever immediate practical support and assistance is needed, whether that is extra pumps and sandbags, military support on the ground or emergency funds from the severe weather assistance fund for local councils.
The Somerset moors and levels have been one of the areas hardest hit by the weather, with 65 million cubic metres of flood-water on the land. The rivers Tone and Parrett have been particularly affected by continued rainfall leading to heightened river levels. In total, people in 150 properties across the Somerset Levels, where there is a threat of severe flooding, have been advised to leave their homes. A rest centre has been established at Bridgwater. Military personnel have been tasked to work alongside local authorities, and are currently filling sandbags for deployment. Pumping continues, but it is challenging to keep pace with the inflow from the latest rainfall and levels are increasing in some areas. It is likely to take weeks to remove the sheer volume of flood-water once there is a significant break in the weather.
Across the Thames Valley and Surrey, the River Thames is rising, and bursting its banks in certain locations. A sandbag programme is in place at key points of vulnerability. A multiagency “gold command” has been set up in Croydon to co-ordinate the response locally, and a major incident has been declared. There is a high risk that the Thames, the Severn and the Wye will flood in the middle of the week. Local responders are actively engaged in planning and preparation.
As I told the House on Thursday, I commend the hard work of the emergency services, local authorities, the Armed Forces and the on-the-ground staff of the Environment Agency. As I said, there will be lessons to be learnt, including Environment Agency policies on issues such as dredging and how it spends its budget of £1.2 billion a year.
I note that the issue of international development funding has been touched upon over the weekend. Just as it was a false choice to cast town versus country, so it is wrong to pit helping the victims of flooding at home against those suffering abroad. We can and should help both; helping the plight of those facing the awfulness of flooded homes in Britain as well as taking action to help malnourished children dying from dirty water abroad. But I also believe taxpayers’ money should be well spent, and that applies to quangos just as much as it does to the international aid budget. By spending money wisely, we can better meet our moral obligations first to Britain and then to the world. But the first and primary obligation of Her Majesty’s Government is defence of this realm: urban and rural, city and county, and that is what we are doing”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for repeating the response to the UQ asked in another place. In doing so he made reference to the Somerset Levels. It will be a considerable relief to those living and farming on the Somerset Levels that the Army has been made available to assist with efforts to protect homes, farms and other businesses. Combined with the efforts of the fire and rescue service, police, Environment Agency staff, local government workers and many volunteers, it is clear that there is finally a concerted effort being made in responding to the floods. However, does the Minister understand the anger and frustration that it took so long for this level of response to be organised by the Government, considering the fact that many people have been dealing with rising water levels since before Christmas? In particular, given that unemployment in the south-west is rising and employment is falling, can the Minister provide an update on the work going into restoring the vital rail connectivity to Devon and Cornwall? Have Ministers formally asked Network Rail to present options for long-term solutions to the vulnerability of this line, including rerouting?
Lord De Mauley
First, I say to the noble Lord that I absolutely understand the frustration and the feelings of those who have been directly affected by these frankly awful weather events. We are doing whatever we can to make sure that properties of people are protected from flooding. Our efforts have meant that 1.2 million properties which would have been flooded since December have not been flooded.
The noble Lord asks specifically about Network Rail. I can tell him that Network Rail is developing strategies for securing the long-term resilience of the railways. Over the next five years, the operator has asked the Office of Rail Regulation for nearly half a billion pounds to invest in resilience improvement projects. In terms of the present, Network Rail engineers are on-site at a number of locations in the south-west, doing all they can to make repairs where the weather conditions permit.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, while applauding the work that is being done to try to help people in the stricken areas, particularly the Somerset Levels, can we look for a moment at the longer term? My noble friend told us last Thursday that,
“the Secretary of State has asked for a clear action plan for the sustainable future of the Somerset Levels and moors to resolve the problem for the next 20 years”.—[Official Report, 6/2/14; col. 264.]
Can I draw my noble friend’s attention to a recently published article by Dr Colin Clark, who is an extremely well known hydrologist, in charge of the Charldon Hill research centre in Somerset? The article is entitled, “Floods on the Somerset Levels: a Sad Tale of Ignorance and Neglect”—over the past 20 years. While having to deal with the crisis now is obviously absolutely crucial, I hope that the action plan will take account of the extremely important points made in Dr Clark’s article, where he identifies in some considerable detail—
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, we have 10 minutes altogether for the UQ.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
He says in considerable detail what actually should be done.
Lord De Mauley
I thank my noble friend for that. It is one of the helpful pieces of advice that is coming in. One issue that has been raised from a lot of quarters is that of dredging, which is only one part of flood maintenance work. Evidence shows that other maintenance activities, such as maintaining pumps, sluice gates and raised embankments, can sometimes provide better value for money in terms of protecting communities from flooding. The effectiveness of dredging in managing flood risk will therefore continue to be assessed on a location-by-location basis in full discussion with local communities and landowners. But I take my noble friend’s advice.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, in one respect, the Minister’s Statement is a bit disappointing, because the very long term is what we also need to consider. Does he not agree that the Government need to recognise increasingly that we have to mitigate against climate change, which is increasingly threatening us? There is a serious risk—and it is not only in Somerset; there is a much wider problem that we might be embarking on, as most scientists would agree.
Lord De Mauley
I certainly do not disagree with that myself, my Lords. The noble Lord makes a really important point. Not only should we adapt to it, which is the substance of what we are talking about today, but we need to mitigate it as well.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I have a very similar question. The speed at which water is now running from hillsides and from urban areas—tarmac and concrete—is part of the problem, coupled with the extreme weather events that we are now seeing. Catchment management is critical to try to reduce and mitigate the risk. I hope that the department is taking that very seriously.
Lord De Mauley
We spoke about that in the debate on the Statement last week, at which stage I said how seriously the Government take that strategy.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. As we all know, attention has rightly focused on the Somerset Levels and the terrible plight that people are enduring there, but when I left Worcester this morning the city was gridlocked as a result of the closure of the main bridge across the river and the situation remains acute. I do not want to apportion blame; I want to pay tribute to those who are working very hard and to the understanding and graciousness of the inhabitants of Worcester. However, it is true that the implications of this will be enormous, economically and from a human point of view. Can the Minister confirm that a coherent policy will be forthcoming for all the affected areas, not just those most terribly affected?
Lord De Mauley
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right—I can confirm that. We have finite resources and must apportion them in a proper way, in accordance with priorities, and the priorities must be human life and property. While I am at the Dispatch Box, can I say that, although I have not given them credit, I know that the churches in Somerset in particular are playing a major part in helping people affected by this dreadful tragedy?
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to the Question that we had in another place. Does he agree with me that the last thing that all those who are suffering want to hear is people arguing among themselves? As well as helping them now, we must look to the future and make sure that, whatever we put in place, we have enough money to maintain it when it is there.
Lord De Mauley
I agree, my Lords. It is very important that we focus on the job in hand. The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Government Policy to undertake an exercise to see what lessons can be learnt from our response to this extreme bad run of bad weather.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, to what extent has the Environment Agency’s action or inaction, particularly in the Somerset Levels, been influenced or dictated by Brussels? For instance, was the dredging of any water courses prevented by the EU and, if so, why?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in a time of a great tragedy for people down on the Somerset moors, it is a shame to seek to place recriminations. We should be getting on with the job in hand.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Is my noble friend aware that there have been one or two most unfortunate reports of theft of fuel from some of the abandoned properties? Can he assure me that every possible effort is being made by the police and anyone else who is helping, including the Army, to make sure that these properties are secure? Will he ensure that proper recognition is given to what seems to be an enormously welcome—particularly to the farmers—voluntary movement of substantial supplies from other farms around the region, and give every encouragement to that?
Lord De Mauley
I am aware of that, we have spoken about it today and I am hugely grateful for the support coming in from around the West Country in particular, as well as from further afield, in terms of supplies for farms and so on. It is extremely generous of people. On his point about theft, I strongly sympathise with people who are forced to leave their homes. Of course they will secure them as they leave, just as they would when going to work. Regrettably, there are those who seek to capitalise on people’s misfortunes, and I can assure my noble friend that the police are patrolling and monitoring in the area.
Baroness Billingham (Lab)
My Lords, this flooding is a catastrophe for those who are living through and having to get through the present situation. However, we are using sticking plasters and not really dealing with the major, underlying problem. Is it not time that the Government, in order to enable the Environment Agency to do the work that we need it to do, reinstated the £100 million cut from its budget?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware, because I have said it enough times from this Dispatch Box, that we are spending a huge sum of money on flood defences. We will continue to do so and, indeed, have made a commitment for six years into the future. I have not heard the Environment Agency say that a shortage of funds is the problem in this case.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, we return to migration. I was struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, when he asked us to remember things while we debated the Bill. Indeed, my theme, which may come to somewhat different conclusions, is about those whose immigration status here is out of order. That is basically my only theme. I should like to suggest some things that we might do well to remember while considering what to do about those whose immigration status is out of order.
Man, as we know, is an economic animal, has always migrated and will continue to do so. However, there is great pressure in today’s world on that willingness to move. There are no frontiers left. In the early years of the 20th century, more than 1 million people went through Ellis Island every year. There is no longer such capability. Some countries are willing to take substantial numbers of people, but nothing of the order that used to apply—and, of course, the world’s population has dramatically increased. In these circumstances, the utilitarian calculation of economic benefit versus loss is simply not adequate.
I learnt that long ago. I was, in an unlikely way, managing a steel foundry in Light Pipe Hall Road, Stockton-on-Tees, when the first people from the Indian subcontinent came, around the time of Suez. I took on a labourer whose name—I hope I will be forgiven—was Patel. After about a fortnight, the TGWU shop steward came to me and said: “John, do you know about this labourer you have taken on?”. “Tell me”, I said. “He lives with seven others, they call themselves brothers but I don’t think they are related. They live in a two-up, two-down terraced house and sleep in shifts”. “Well?”, I said. He said: “The lads don’t like it”. I do not know what the effect on that particular street was at the time. I suppose one could put the wonderful label of social cohesion on it somewhere. The problem solved itself, or maybe somebody found a solution for it, because Patel and his brothers went to Bradford where it is not quite as cold as it is on Teeside and where there were more of their brothers.
At the same time, incidentally, I learnt another thing. People are very good and, sensibly, know when it is right not to know the answer to things and be able to say: “I cannot cope. I do not know how to do this”. Yet if they had a roll-up and some mixed doubles put on at the local bookie by Eddie Rollinson and it came up, there would be no difficulty about knowing how much was to be distributed. Whatever the economic and social issues of people living without their immigration status being correct, the question of the law and what to do about it will remain with us. If there are indeed between 300,000 and 500,000 such people, or whether the figure is different, we have a real problem. We should also remember that this is not just about economic and social issues: there is a connection with security.
So what should happen? We have a choice. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the right reverend Prelate, if you have people whose documents are out of order and you think it would be right for them to stay, then every effort should be made to put their documents right. It should not just be left that there is nothing one can do. If their documents cannot be put right, because the law does not allow it, then they should leave. Is that an unreasonable view? I do not think so: it has some element of reality in it.
At the moment, we need to relieve unsustainable pressures and manage this country of 60 million people and a medium-sized economy. While we are doing that, there are some things I suggest we remember. Our liberal democratic philosophy is at a discount out there in the world. There is no queue at the moment to join in. After Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Syria we have neither the will nor the means to do anything about it. Maybe we should talk less and listen more, and even remember that the Russians may—certainly do—know a great deal more about Islam that we do. It might, therefore, behove us to concentrate on managing our own affairs.
In this respect, we have 2.3 million unemployed people. If, through a combination of economic growth, education and training, and employers, who always talk their own book, doing as much about the training as possible, we could drive unemployment down by half a million people, we would make a great difference to the immigration pressures that exist. If teachers succeeded in managing our schools as well as they could be managed, and if we managed our hospitals as well as they could be managed, then maybe the problem of people who are here but do not have the right to stay would come to be seen as a great deal easier than is sometimes suggested. In an open and democratic society, is it unreasonable to ask, “Who are you?”, “Where do you come from?”, “Is your immigration status okay?” or “Is your family’s immigration status okay?”? There does not seem to be anything in that kind of inquiry that could not be handled in an adult democracy. Who supports people staying here without the right to do so without that being put right? Does anybody support that?
Of course, this matter has become a great muddle—life does from time to time become a great muddle—but is it not sensible to have a go at sorting it out every now and again with all the difficulties of achieving success? In respect of those whose documents are not in good order, this Bill is a step in the right direction.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I share the concerns set out by other noble Lords about the impact of the Bill, and I want to focus my remarks on the position of students. However, before I do that, I express my concern about the effect of the Bill on children—specifically migrant children.
An excellent briefing from the Refugee Children’s Consortium alerted me to the dangers to the safety and well-being of thousands of children which, it argues, are inherent in the Bill. The Government want to encourage those with no legal right to be in the UK to “go home”, but of the 120,000 undocumented children living in the UK, the majority were born here or have spent most of their young lives here. They include unaccompanied children who have been brought here for exploitation, those fleeing war or those who have been abandoned by their carers. This is the only home they know. If the proposed measures in the Bill, including those on access to healthcare, access to housing and narrowing of appeal rights, further increase destitution and homelessness, they will put more vulnerable children and young people at risk of exploitation and abuse. I share the hope of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that the Minister will use his reply today to say something about how the Government propose to protect these children.
Turning to the impact of the Bill on international students and staff, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Council of University College London. In bringing forward this Bill, the Government are responding to widely held concerns about the impact of immigration. We have already heard that this evening a “Panorama” programme will expose new allegations of abuse by private companies helping visa applicants to defraud the system. If it is true, it is very serious. The reputation of the UK education sector as a whole relies on robustness on immigration rules from all quarters.
Members of this House will know that Universities UK has campaigned for a more welcoming visa policy. What may not be so well known is that, alongside this, it has been working with the Home Office to improve the way that the compliance system works—running joint events with the Home Office involving hundreds of university employees, improving guidance and developing a familiarisation programme for the Home Office Higher Education Assurance Team. Universities have put literally millions of pounds into upholding their responsibilities in the immigration system, but fraud in one part of the system damages all parts of it. Universities have worked hard to eliminate abuse and we want to keep it that way without discouraging genuine students from coming to study here. That is why I am joining so many others in urging the Government not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, we need robust rules, properly enforced. Yes, we must acknowledge concerns about immigration, but we should do neither of these things at the expense of the wider national interest.
Studies by the Migration Observatory and others have shown that the public are much more positive about the contribution that students make to this country. They recognise that students are not migrants in the usual sense of the word, despite the fact that this Government’s net migration target counts them as such. The Government, from the Prime Minister down, explicitly recognise how much this country gains from the outstanding track record of our universities in attracting international students. We earn more than £10 billion a year as the second most popular destination for students. Committees of this House, such as those led by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Krebs, have shown that the benefits are lasting; they create valuable links with countries all over the world and are valued by business and diplomats. If this Bill damages our ability to attract students—and I believe that it does—it damages the UK.
Four aspects of the Bill concern me: the removal of appeal rights; landlord immigration checks; the NHS surcharge; and measures to make it easier for the Secretary of State to increase visa fees. Many noble Lords will recall the debates in this House during the passage of the then Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill when rights of appeal were removed for a large number of visa cases, including for initial entry clearance for students and others. This was despite overwhelming evidence that the quality of initial decision-making was very poor, so that success on appeal was high. Not much appears to have changed. Success on appeal is just under 50%. What can be the justification for removing the right to challenge decisions? We are told, as we were in 2006, that administrative review will be an effective replacement. I agree with others, including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, who argue that administrative review is useful but that it should exist in addition to, and not instead of, the right of appeal. If officials get a decision wrong, there should be a mechanism for correcting it by administrative means. That would reduce the number of decisions successfully appealed. It is wrong to remove the scope for an independent judgment where so much may hang on the outcome of immigration decisions.
The second aspect which concerns me is the new requirement on landlords to check the immigration status of tenants. Debate in another place has shown how unlikely this is to be workable. Private landlords are not immigration lawyers and I am concerned that, faced with a very wide range of documents, they will simply let accommodation to people who appear to be British. This could lead to discrimination on racial grounds which could affect a wide range of people who are lawfully in this country. Students and university staff would be particularly hit, because the measures in the Bill would make it difficult to secure accommodation in advance of arriving in the UK. This will need real scrutiny in Committee.
Thirdly, the new NHS surcharge will add to the upfront costs associated with coming to the UK. The Government have made the welcome decision to set a lower charge for students and that is a positive step. My view—one which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—is that the Government should think again about whether they should be charging them at all. Given the long-term and short-term benefits which the UK derives from students, the addition of yet another charge is characteristically short-sighted.
Finally, the Bill contains an interesting set of proposals about visa fees and charges. They were not much debated in another place, and I suspect that this House will want to know more about the degree of scrutiny that we will be able to exercise over proposed increases. Visa fees have been rising rapidly and we know that they are set to rise further. Will the Minister reassure the House that, in setting fees, particularly for students, the Secretary of State will have regard to fee levels in competitor countries? This matters because we know our competitors—the US, Australia, Canada and Germany—are doing everything they can to attract more international students. While our Government come up with new restrictions, barriers and costs, our competitors are removing barriers and increasing incentives.
The Minister may say that the UK continues to attract the brightest and best. Has he seen the latest HESA figures, which other noble Lords have already mentioned? These show that the total number of international students in the UK has fallen—so far by 1%, but this is significant because it is the first time that a decrease has been recorded. New enrolments are also down, for the second year in a row. The number of students from India has dropped by a staggering 49% in two years. In an expanding market, what a lost opportunity this is. When will the Government stop being complacent about this? International higher education is a phenomenal success story for the UK. The Government should support it wholeheartedly. The measures in this Bill will not help, and I hope we will be able to do something about this as the Bill passes through this House.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, UK Visa and Immigration is still floundering in the unreliable IT systems and casework backlog left by the troubled UKBA when the Home Secretary abolished it last March and there is nothing in this Bill to deal with the quality of decision-making, which has not improved since that change. Now we are placing new demands on UKVI that, in the words of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, it,
“is not equipped or able to meet and gives it powers that it cannot be relied upon to exercise properly”.
I agree with my noble friend the Minister about separating myth from reality. The views on immigration that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said were widely held were influenced by false notions of the numbers of immigrants encouraged by the Daily Mail. In an Ipsos MORI poll in June 2013, people questioned thought that immigrants made up 31% of the population, whereas the true figure was 13%. In the latest statistics, immigration for work was down by 12% on the previous year; there was a 7% fall in work-related grants to stay permanently, and non-EEA family visas were down by 20% to the lowest figure since comparable records began in 2005.
These facts are not well advertised, leaving UKIP and the Daily Mail free to create fear in the minds of the public. We saw this in the totally unjustified hysteria over the floods of Bulgarians and Romanians who were allegedly ready to invade the country on 1 January, when the hordes of newsmen greeting a flight from Bucharest were disappointed to find that only two of the passengers were Romanian.
One of my fears is that many dependants are being denied leave to enter because of the £18,600 income threshold applied to the sponsor and the refusal to consider other resources available to a couple, such as the earning potential of the applicant or the provision of free accommodation by the sponsor’s parents or other relatives. There is nothing in the Bill to correct breaches of Article 8—the right to family life—and, indeed, Clause 14 tries to coerce the courts into interpreting Article 8.2 more restrictively by telling them what weight they are to give to certain factors. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has commented adversely on this attempt to bend the decisions of the courts in directions which may conflict with case law, and we shall have to look at this in detail when we come to the Committee stage.
I also fear that substituting this administrative review for the right of appeal against all immigration decisions, except asylum and human rights claims, is bound to lead to injustice. Half the appeals by economic migrants and students are successful, the majority of them on the basis of factual error by the decision-maker. Half of entry clearance appeals and a third of deport appeals are also successful, as the right reverend Prelate said. The common-sense answer would have been to train caseworkers to get the initial decisions right instead of taking away people’s appeal rights. There is already an administrative review by the Home Office presenting officer when he is preparing for the appeal. That process does not pick up hundreds of wrong decisions, as the appeals statistics show.
How will this review approach the many decisions which are not in accordance with the law because they were not in accordance with the rules or did not deal properly with the evidence? Will the review accept representations from the applicant or her representative? Will the process be conducted behind closed doors? Instead of accepting that officials rubber-stamp their own colleagues’ decisions, appellants may either seek to reconfigure their cases as human rights challenges or, if that is not on the cards, to proceed by way of judicial review.
The appeals impact statement suggests that 5,600 extra judicial reviews may be started as a result of this process and up to 1,000 granted permission. These cases will cost a lot more than if they had been heard before the First-tier Tribunal and there will be further expenditure when costs are claimed or damages sought. The impact assessment does not go into the arithmetic on this but I am sure the Home Office has the figures. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us have them.
On bail, there is nothing in the Bill to deal with the scandal of long-term detention of individuals who pose no threat to national security. Some 5% of immigration detainees are held for more than a year and another 7% or 8% for between six months and a year. That is surely intolerable and we should require the independent chief inspector, John Vine, to carry out regular annual inspections of the long-term detention of immigrants. For the past few years, while immigration has been declining, the number in detention has been rising steadily. I should be grateful if the Minister would say how much has been spent on the detention estate since the coalition came into office. How does the Treasury view the plans for an even bigger estate?
I have difficulty also with the decision to allow the Secretary of State to deprive a person of his citizenship if it was acquired by naturalisation and she is satisfied that while a citizen the person conducted himself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. The instant she makes an order under Clause 60, if the person has no other citizenship he becomes stateless and has only a retrospective right of appeal under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
Did the Government consult the UNHCR, the guardian of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, before including this clause in the Bill? Did they consider providing some form of external scrutiny over the powers in Section 40 of the 1981 Act, which are being exercised on an increasing scale? In 2013, 20 people were stripped of their UK citizenship, which was more than in all the previous years since the original power was introduced in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On health tourism, the Bill contains only enabling provisions but the intention is that non-EEA migrants granted leave to enter for more than six months will be required to pay a surcharge, like an insurance premium, to cover the cost of any NHS treatment that they may need, which is reasonable. But all other non-EEA visitors coming for shorter periods of up to six months are liable to be charged at the point of accessing treatment after the initial contact with a GP, for which registration will be required. Did Ministers consider the representations we have all had from Maternity Action and the Royal College of Midwives about the harmful effects this will have on pregnant women among the 500,000 estimated undocumented migrants, including not only the short-term visitors but also refused asylum-seekers and visa overstayers? They may be deterred from seeking antenatal care and, as a result, develop health resource intensive conditions later on or potential harm to the unborn child.
Obviously I welcome the statutory prohibition of child detention, even though it is still subject to the exceptions that were agreed in 2010. At the Report stage in another place, the Home Secretary said that the Government would provide a separate legal basis for pre-departure accommodation. I am wondering whether that refers to the short-term holding facilities at Heathrow and other points of entry, which the Independent Monitoring Board has condemned as,
“unsuitable for use overnight or at any time by children”.
There is now at last a plan for improvements, due to start in April and to be completed by December 2014. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the project at Heathrow is still on course.
I also welcome the introduction of universal embarkation checks in 2015, which are provided for in Schedule 8 and seem to have escaped the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. We already screen about two-thirds of passengers leaving the UK using advance passenger information. I understand that that will go up to 75% on all routes and 90% of all air passengers next month. To complete the picture, data on the remaining passengers will have to be collected at the border by carrier and port operator staff. Those persons are already involved in outbound passenger processes, so the additional work required of them will be minimal.
As the Public Accounts Committee said in July 2013, estimates of annual migration are based at present on the International Passenger Survey sample of 5,000 migrants and are subject to a wide margin of error. I congratulate the Government on eliminating that uncertainty and collecting information, as has been long advocated by the Liberal Democrats. It is of importance to our national security and to the effective enforcement of our immigration laws.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that all Patels are brothers and sisters, and that they never do anything illegal knowingly.
To get back to more serious matters, I guess that the Minister must be heartened that we are nearly half way through.
Lord Patel
He will not have heard many supporters of this Bill and he is not likely to hear more. I will try not to repeat much that has already been said but I hope to add to it. Noble Lords must not misunderstand me: I feel strongly about the issues already raised, particularly those related to universities, students and health charges. I will also mention briefly the effect that the Bill may have on other vulnerable groups, particularly pregnant women and children.
I declare an interest: I am chancellor of the University of Dundee and, rather unusually, still hold a professorship at the same university in obstetrics. Fortunately, I have not been called on for any services to be delivered for a while.
As has already been mentioned, Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors of bona fide universities—we are not talking about bogus universities which might be mentioned in the “Panorama” programme—feels strongly that a Bill that will,
“remove appeal rights for students and staff applying for further leave to remain … introduce a surcharge for access to NHS services … require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants … increase the scope for government to raise fees for visas and immigration services”,
is fundamentally flawed. It believes that,
“it would be in the wider interests of the UK to exempt international students from the effects of the Bill”.
I would add postgraduate students to that list.
It has already been mentioned that, according to government figures, international students in higher education contributed £10.2 billion to the UK economy. We have already heard that it has been recorded for the first time that there was a drop of about 1% in students in 2012-13. To give some more detailed figures, as regards the total entrants by subject from non-EU countries, in STEM subjects there was a drop in 2011-12 of 8% and a further 2% in 2012-13. These are official figures.
In some STEM subjects, for instance in veterinary science, there was a 22% drop; in medicine and dentistry, there was a 6% drop; and in computer science, there was an 11% drop. While the drop has not been as significant in some non-STEM subjects, a trend is beginning to show. It is even demonstrated in postgraduate students and, more importantly, it is now beginning to show in research students. What is fundamental is that the trend is downwards.
We have to ask why, when people like me once considered the United Kingdom to be the prime place to go for undergraduate and postgraduate education, they now are trying to go somewhere else. It is a compound effect of the visa restrictions, increased charges and now the other charges that this legislation would impose. Some 32% of post-docs are from non-EU countries. They often come with their families. This Bill will make it more expensive for them.
Much has already been said about students and I support all that, so I come now to Clauses 33 and 34, which relate to NHS charges. I fully accept that there is a need to protect the public purse by limiting access to healthcare in some circumstances and preventing the deliberate misuse of scarce resources. However, any measures we introduce should be practical, necessary, appropriate and, to borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, evidence based. The Bill introduces a change to the residency criteria in Clause 34 so that eligibility for free NHS services is dependent on migrants having indefinite leave to remain. How many migrants who do not have indefinite leave to remain are working, paying tax and making national insurance contributions? Is it equitable that they should also pay the charges?
I am also concerned about the equity of these changes as there are significant variations in the time it takes for individuals to become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. The introduction of the health surcharge could also make the UK a less attractive destination for skilled workers from outside the EEA, particularly in shortage areas such as the National Health Service. Everybody here is familiar with the sight of lots of doctors and many more nurses from non-EU countries in our hospitals. They might have come here to train and remained here.
There are other issues too. The rationale given for the changes, in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, is that the current arrangements are too generous and leave the NHS open to abuse. The Department of Health commissioned a two-phase independent audit of visitors and temporary migrants using the NHS. The Government brought in the legislation based on this. I am concerned that the Government’s proposals could create unintended drawbacks for the NHS and for patients in particular. The proposals are likely to create a complex patchwork of charging and access entitlements where some services, such as GP appointments, remain free while others, including A&E visits, will be charged for.
The Bill also introduces changes to residency criteria so that eligibility for free NHS services depends on migrants having indefinite leave to remain, as I already mentioned. However, a medical student who comes to the UK on a Tier 4 visa and remains on that visa for seven or eight years to finish the undergraduate course and then goes on to a Tier 2 visa because he needs postgraduate training would take 10 to 12 years to get indefinite leave to remain. Is that equitable? Why should he be penalised for 10 years?
I am also concerned that proposals for a health surcharge in Clause 33 risk having a negative impact on the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for skilled workers, particularly in shortage occupations where the economy cannot find sufficient workers either from the UK or the EEA workforce. In the UK, consultants in emergency medicine, haematology and old-age psychiatry are on the shortage occupation list. Non-consultants and non-training medical posts—most of the junior doctors you often see in the hospital—in anaesthesia, general medicine and psychiatry are also on the list. There are many more specialties now being added because of the shortage. The health surcharge, when combined with visa application fees and maintenance requirements, risks having an impact on the UK’s ability to attract high-quality migrants in medical jobs on the shortage occupation list. This could clearly have a negative impact on healthcare.
The Bill also includes provision for migrants who have paid the health surcharge to be able to access free NHS care to the same extent as a permanent resident. However, it also allows for exclusion from free access to be specified for particularly expensive discretionary treatments. It is not stated why, if the initial payment is considered to be fair, appropriate and comprehensive, there will also be discretionary payments for some high-risk conditions and the Bill does not state what they are. It gives the overall impression that, if you want to come to this country for study or work, it will cost you.
The issue of pregnant women was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There are potential health impacts for pregnant women from Clauses 33 and 34. The proposed changes will deter some pregnant women from seeking and accessing maternity care. This will have a negative impact on the health of these women and their babies and perversely will lead to a need for more medical care at a greater cost. Charges at the point of care create risks that women will not present to the NHS, will present late in pregnancy or will be denied access because of their inability to pay. This prevents midwives and doctors from giving the appropriate health advice and treatment early in pregnancy. It cannot be right to include pregnant women.
The newspaper headlines say that the number of babies born to immigrant mothers is increasing, but the papers do not clearly define immigrant mothers. I guess anybody who is not white might be an immigrant mother. Anybody who might be white but is known to come from another European country will also be regarded as an immigrant. An exemption from NHS charges for all pregnant women and children is required in this Bill.
In short, I hope that we will see all students and postgraduates removed from this Bill before it becomes law and that NHS charges for pregnant women and children will also be removed. That is what I hope the Minister will accept and what I will be looking for in the amendments I will bring.
Lord Winston
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after my noble friend Lord Patel. I just wish that I had his experience. However, I can declare a relevant interest. Apart from being an academic at Imperial College, where I hold a chair, I am also the chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, I am on the council of Surrey University and I am chairman of the Royal College of Music. As far as I am aware, I have not delivered a baby at any of these institutions. However, I think that that broad experience is quite relevant to this debate, as is the fact that over the past three or so years I have probably spoken in about one-third of British universities and have met overseas students from every Russell group university.
Therefore, I think I can say with some assurance that I am a bit surprised at the Minister’s apparent complacency with his speech. He is widely respected in this House and his lovely manner belies what is a pretty cruel Bill, which is a very serious issue for us. One of the things the Minister said was that this Bill strikes the right balance. In my view, it clearly does not, as pretty well every speaker has said. Secondly, the Minister asserted that the figures for overseas students had held steady. That is not true. Admittedly the overall 1% fall is trivial and could be a statistical freak but there is plentiful evidence that numbers of the key students who we really need in this country are falling, particularly in the STEM subjects where there is the greatest contribution to our national economy and that of our universities. Thirdly, he said that the NHS contribution is designed as a fair contribution. It is not a fair contribution because most students who come to this country are young, fit people who will not require National Health Service treatment. When I was a post-doc, I went as a research fellow to Belgium. I took with me not only my long-suffering wife, who is sitting near the Chamber, but also my baby daughter. One of the assurances that I had when going on that year’s trip was the recognition that if my daughter fell ill she would have free treatment. In general, that is something that has been an important principle.
If the figures for coming into this country as an overseas student are indeed almost holding steady, that is because of the outstanding education students receive at British universities. It has nothing to do with easier access to the UK, which is the implication. The access is quite clearly not easy. It is complacent to suggest otherwise.
It worried me, too, when the noble Lord, Lord King, seemed to say that this Bill was partly needed to appease—and I am paraphrasing, so forgive me—public opinion. I do not think that we should be appeasing public opinion if it is the wrong legislation.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I did not say that and the noble Lord was embarrassed when he tried to say that I did. I was simply saying that it is no good for the country to feel that there is no concern about problems that are coming up over illegal immigration and abuse of the immigration system. It is our responsibility in Parliament to help command public confidence, otherwise we will face a much more serious situation in the future.
Lord Winston
I accept what the noble Lord said and I bow to his great experience as a previous Secretary of State. None the less, one of the issues, surely, is that we need to engage with the public so that they recognise what is good for the country and what is less good for the country. I fear that the Bill does not do that, which is a problem.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said in his outstanding speech, with all the figures that he gave, but the complacency is surprising. I know that it is out of order to show a document in the House, so I will not raise it to shoulder level. But a document from the Home Office, which is 167 pages thick, arrived this afternoon before the debate. There was no possibility of being able to absorb this information, which is so detailed, about why the Home Office justifies this legislation.
We should recognise that there is a deep-seated concern outside the United Kingdom about the way that students are greeted in this country. I say that as a regular visitor to Caltech, which is of course in California, and an irregular visitor to Harvard, Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, most recently. Invariably, in all the laboratories there are outstanding students—particularly Indian students—all of whom are convinced that we are not open for business. When we mentioned that to Home Office Ministers giving evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, it was consistently denied. It also transpired, when we asked the border control agency and the Home Office Ministers who were representing the Government at those inquiries, that none of them could give us clear figures about which students were going through customs, broken down into how many were from Russell group universities and how many were studying STEM subjects. That is a big deficiency because those are particularly the people we want to keep.
There is unquestionable evidence from students that they are concerned about the amount they pay for visas, and there is a suggestion that over the next 10 years that amount of money overall might raise around £700 million. Perhaps the Minister can correct me when he comes to reply. So £200 per annum for the National Health Service may not seem much to people like ourselves, who are, after all, well off. But let us cast our minds back to when we were students. Most of us did not actually have to pay fees. Students who are paying fees are looking for every single penny, no matter where they come from. The last thing they want to be is a burden on relatives or friends. If they can go somewhere where they will be less of a burden, they will undoubtedly increasingly choose those universities.
I want to tell the Minister what one of my students at Imperial College said: “Stop treating us like money machines”. That is a very real issue for our students. How is that £200 arrived at? What would it raise? How many students will use the NHS? Who will organise it through the NHS bureaucracy? What will be the cost to the NHS to make sure that this impost is paid? Lots of figures have been bandied around about how much extra those students from outside the EU bring in. It may be £7.9 billion or £11.3 billion, which is the biggest figure that I have seen. But even that does not take into account, for example, the entire intellectual property that is produced by overseas students. My colleague, Dr Carol Readhead and I have produced 25 patents and spun out a company at Imperial College. Most of the IPR was actually generated closely in conjunction with the university at Caltech, and without the patent lawyers in California I could not have established that company in London. That is an important point to be made.
Imperial College, like the Royal College of Music, is a good example of where it will be a colossal problem if the Bill goes through as it is. It is worth bearing in mind that 68.3% of Imperial College’s fee income comes from international students compared with 31% of the student body. We should look at those figures for a moment and understand what they mean. I hope particularly that our Liberal Democrat friends will recognise them when it comes to amendments. We have been left with a crashing problem with the rise in student fees. Frankly, international students are subsidising the education of British students to a real extent. At Imperial College, it will cost at least £30,000 to £35,000 for an engineering student and maybe more for a medical student. Of course, our students are paying £9,600. There is a real issue here about whether or not we maintain this as a business. If we threaten our universities, we risk serious damage. As it turns out, I am not particularly worried about Imperial College, but some other universities undoubtedly will have a massive problem.
I will finish because I have gone on for 10 minutes, which is longer than I intended. There is clear evidence that numbers are being reduced from some areas, particularly India, Nigeria, Japan and Turkey. We are talking a range of about 50% reductions from those countries. That is a real issue. Some 160 languages are spoken at Imperial College. The Royal College of Music is a much smaller place and 60 languages are spoken there. Those people have a huge and vital importance to Britain, not merely for its economy but for its future. We should be trying to encourage some of those scientists to stay in this country and support our economy in the future in all sorts of ways. At the moment, post-docs from my laboratory have left and gone—one to America recently and one to Asia. That is highly regrettable.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I have long been of the opinion that immigration law is one of the best tests of the values and principles to which any country subscribes. It is also one of the best litmus tests by which to judge a country. I therefore wish to align myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee earlier on this afternoon when she spoke on the Bill.
The desperately sad thing is that we have been here before. In 2004, the Blair Government consulted on a similar proposal to exclude visitors from free primary healthcare. They did it as an excuse to try to deny failed asylum seekers access to NHS services, particularly secondary care. They never published the results of their consultation and quietly shelved the matter. Here we are again, all these years later, with another Government, under pressure from the right-wing press, coming up with the same set of proposals. It is a desperately sad reflection on the way we are asked to make legislation on this subject that we are yet again put in this position.
In July 2013, Jeremy Hunt admitted that he did not know whether health tourism was a problem at all. He said:
“The truth is that we do not know the cost”—
of unpaid NHS charges—
“which is why we are carrying out an independent audit this summer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/13; col. 908.]
The Government produced two pieces of quantitative and qualitative research to go along with these Bills. The conclusion that can be drawn from them is that there is currently no systematic data collection whatever on NHS use by migrants, chargeable or otherwise.
The quantitative data were a top-down estimate of migrant use, modelled from data that were sometimes of varying quality and from a large number of assumptions. They used, for example, the international passenger survey data. They did not give us any actual new information about use of the NHS by migrants. In the quantitative research, researchers repeatedly put caveats around the findings of their model, saying that,
“any point is just a likely value in a plausible range”.
That is to say, the much publicised figure of £1.76 billion, which has been bandied around, is about 50% likely to be wrong. I really do not think that this is a proper basis on which to bring about such a fundamental change in access to the NHS.
The quantitative survey was subtitled, “Observations from the Front Line”. It gave the impression that front-line staff in acute health services had come up with systematic observations about migrants and their use of the NHS. In fact, what it revealed was that there was no systematic observation, and that quite often people were simply asked questions on the basis of their appearance or nationality. Such a flawed basis of research is really no way in which to change the fundamental right of access to the NHS for all of us.
By creating a barrier to accessing primary care services, we open up a huge health threat to the whole population. It is entirely possible that there will be serious implications in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases and in herd immunity for childhood diseases, for which we need immunisation of the whole population. There is a significant public health risk associated with restricting access to primary care, and it is not something that we should do lightly. There is not much evidence, I know, but there is one small study from Médecins du Monde—doctors of the world—which has a small clinic in Tower Hamlets that works with people who are vulnerable and do not have access to NHS services.
It is a very small study, but what MdM found was that its GP list of patients was pretty much like that of every other GP surgery. The majority of people who come to see the doctors do not require any treatment at all. A small, but significant, number of people require some minor medication and a follow-up visit. A fraction of patients require secondary care. Admittedly, this is only a small study, but rather than paying all our attention to some of the alarmist stories that we see in the press, we really ought to look at those small figures.
The biggest point that I want to make is that if we are to go ahead with anything in this Bill, we should do it solely on the basis that its implementation will be accompanied throughout by proper research and evidence-tracking, so that in future we will not be reduced to passing laws on the basis of what the Daily Mail might think is the truth.
In the time available to me, I shall pass on to one other issue. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for his thoughtful speech. On the issue of sham marriages and civil partnerships, I understand that the Government believe that there are between 4,000 and 10,000—we are back to shaky evidence bases again. They say that in 2012 there were approximately 1,900 cases of sham marriages and civil partnerships under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. How many of those were sham civil partnerships, as opposed to sham heterosexual marriages, and what were the countries of origin of the non-EEA partners?
I understand that the proposal to extend the notification for civil partnerships and marriages from 15 days to 28 is to enable registry officials to satisfy themselves that they are genuine. Under this Bill, the Home Office will also be allowed to extend that period to 70 days for further investigation, if there is reason to believe that the marriage or civil partnership is not genuine. However, it is not clear to me whether there is any appeal process which people will be able to use if they have been wrongly adjudged to have entered into a sham marriage or civil partnership. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether there is an appeals process, what it is and how people will be enabled to use it?
Finally, I turn to one other issue. Noble Lords who read yesterday’s Observer will have seen that LGBT asylum seekers have been subjected to the most shockingly degrading line of questioning during their interviews. Does the Minister agree that demeaning and intimidating people just because they are gay has no part whatever to play in our justice system? Will he assure us that this is going to stop—and stop now? We are not Uganda. We do not treat gay people like that in this country, no matter how hard our times are.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a small landlord. Since the late 1960s, I have noticed successive Governments have used legislation for a more robust position on immigration, and it is always before the general election or even just before the European election. The debate should have been about the new EU arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria, but it is always the visible minority communities and people from outside the EU who will face the consequences.
I regret that I may be repeating some points so eloquently made earlier by your Lordships, but I will repeat them anyway. Parts 1 and 2 would remove due process protections and judicial scrutiny of immigration decision-making. Part 2 would also give immigration officials the power to demand biometric information from individuals. Officials currently believe they have the right to question during in-country spot checks. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is not in his seat, but I wonder how many of your Lordships have been stopped at an airport. The noble Viscount asked what was wrong with being asked to produce documents. I will tell your Lordships.
Last year I was stopped twice: once at Heathrow and a second time at Birmingham. At Birmingham in June I was asked to produce my documents, which I did, and I was then asked where I was going. I told them that I was going to Pakistan and why I was going there. I told him that I was going to attend the Prime Minister’s inauguration ceremony. Then he asked what I did, and I said, “I am a Member of the House of Lords”, and he asked, “In what country?”.
I made the point to the former Immigration Minister, Mark Harper, that that man needed some training. When I asked him whether he was targeting or profiling, he said that he was profiling. When I have asked Ministers and officials, they have said that there is no such thing as profiling. If that happened to any white, indigenous parliamentarian or member of the public, people would be appalled. That is my point. I can give you the dates: April and June 2013.
In November 2013, there was a raid in Rotherham at a restaurant, the Orient Express, the old train station. I just happened to be there when about eight or 10 officers walked in. Some of them stood near the door. The others went into the kitchen. They moved all the staff, who were very busy. They questioned everybody. I was watching, and then I asked one of the officers if I could speak to the senior officer present. He said, “Who are you?” and I told him that I was a just servant, a Member of the House of Lords, and I just wanted to ask what they were looking for. Actually, the raid resulted in nothing, because it was not based on intelligence but, having made that point, the officers, having come through the front door, went through the back of the restaurant and did not want to speak to me. That was recorded with the immigration officials in Yorkshire and Humberside.
Parts 3 and 4 would mark a huge shift in the British tradition of immigration control at the border, transferring responsibility to the daily lives of people across the country. Landlords, vicars, imams and healthcare workers will be asked to check on the immigration status of individuals who want to use their services, inevitably setting race relations back decades in the process. The point has already been made about the former Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, but even he could not detect the immigration papers. How can we expect landlords, vicars and health workers to behave like UK Border Agency officials?
In my opinion, the Bill is a sinister piece of legislation. Building on our laws that define certain humans as illegal, it is intended to create an even more hostile environment for an already marginalised section of society. Consequently, people will be deprived of employment, bank accounts, driving licences, accommodation and family life. Legal rights for seeking redress will be severely curtailed, and courts will be instructed by Parliament on how to decide cases. At the same time, social media channels are churning out material, propaganda wagons have been sent to patrol the streets bearing a slogan of hate, and “papers please” checks on public transport and the streets are spreading.
Families will not simply accept their extermination. Lovers will not part because a bureaucrat makes an error. Parents will not abandon their dreams for their children because some politician says so. Children will not exile their parents to a distant and lonely death because compassion and rights are no longer relevant to modern public policy.
Nor will society return to the chalky white days of the 1950s, before all these inconvenient cross-border, cross-racial family relationships. The Government’s hostile environment is not just about purging those modern, loving families from our society; it is also about wishfully thinking that such relationships can be discouraged in future. The setting of minimum income for a spouse at a level that literally half the population cannot meet warns our young and poor people that love with a foreigner comes at huge personal cost. It is intended to dissuade.
The Government’s social engineering is unnatural and morally wrong. It cannot possibly work, but it can cause misery along the way. The Bill removes appeal rights against decisions made under the Immigration Rules. For more than 40 years, we have had immigration tribunals to correct administrative decisions profoundly affecting people’s lives. It appears that tribunals will continue to exist for tax disputes, school place allocation, parking fines and welfare benefits, but not where one is faced with permanent separation from spouse or children or removal from the country.
The Bill proposes the removal of the right of appeal to an independent judge, to be replaced with “administrative review”, as many of your Lordships have already mentioned, by the department’s own staff. Immigration appeals have an almost 50% success rate, according to the Government’s own figures. A recent freedom of information request reveals that, between July 2012 and June 2013, 6,096 administrative reviews were resolved and, of those, 1,077 were overturned. That is 18%. That is why the Government want to remove the right of appeal. It is the same reason why the Government want to reduce access to judicial review: they do not like losing. The Government would rather reduce access to justice and remove independent scrutiny than improve decision-making.
The Government propose to empower the Home Secretary to deprive a person of British citizenship acquired by naturalisation, even if by doing so she will render the person stateless. The Home Secretary will be able to use that power if the person,
“has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”.
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in the Trop v Dulles case that it was a cruel and unusual punishment to deprive a person of citizenship, making him or her an outcast in his own land. Statelessness has been estimated to affect up to 12 million people worldwide. Possession of nationality is essential for full participation in society and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of the full range of human rights. Those who are stateless may, for example, be denied the right to own land or exercise the right to vote. They are often unable to obtain identity documents. They may be detained because they are stateless, and they can be denied access to education and health services or blocked from obtaining employment.
The evil of statelessness is a profound concern of the United Nations, which has produced two conventions on the issue: the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961. The UK has signed both. Article 8 of the 1961 convention states:
“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless”.
Although Article 8.3 allows the state to derogate from their obligation in respect of a person who,
“has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State”,
the UK has until now deliberately not relied on that derogation. Section 56 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, passed in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 bombings, gave the Secretary of State the power to deprive a person of British citizenship on the grounds that that was conducive to the public good, but not if to do so would render the person stateless. I am puzzled by the use of the phrase,
“conducive to the public good”,
because it has been used arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner.
Let me give you an example: a man called Moazzam Begg—a former Guantanamo Bay detainee—and a political leader from Pakistan both live in north London. In the case of Mr Begg, his passport has been confiscated due to his travel abroad, and I understand that he has been collecting information regarding the complicity of various authorities in the Syria dispute. He has never been charged with any criminal or terrorist activity anywhere, but he is now without a passport. In the case of the Pakistani politician, according to the BBC “Newsnight,” there are very serious allegations of murder, incitement to violence and money-laundering, which have been investigated by the Metropolitan Police. This man has no connection with British society. To the best of my knowledge he does not have a job or a business in the UK. Many people, however, have been killed in Karachi after his telephonic addresses, when he speaks from London. Thousands of people have made complaints to the Met police and written to the British authorities on his activities related to violence in Pakistan, yet the Home Secretary has not made any efforts to have him removed. There are thousands of people who question me on every trip to Pakistan on why the British authorities have this double standard—why they treat some people differently. It is “conducive to public good”.
The Government’s plan risks the UK’s losing a proud position—a position of solidarity and a potential position of leadership—instead of remaining at the forefront of international efforts to reduce statelessness. I have a very long list of things that I wanted to go into, and I realise that I have gone over my time, but I hope that the Bill will be changed, at least in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, including Clause 60. Amendments can make this Bill much better than it is now.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, there have been many times in our history when we have had a hostile environment for immigration. Perhaps one of the more justified ones was when my own family came from Denmark, a European state—but of course it was not then, in the years 800 to 1000. It was more of a Norse confederation when we came in, and we certainly pillaged. I do not know what else we did, but we took the lands of Suffolk, where my predecessors were—a wonderful county, much enriched by us Norse and the Danes. It was right that there should have been a hostile reaction to those boats coming across the North Sea into—well, it was not the land of Angles then, but Saxon England.
What concerns me is this theme that has come through of hostile environments, created not so much by the Government, though I will come back to that later, but by the public. It is a real issue. I would come back to the theme of leadership that my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned, and how we deal with that.
To me, one of the biggest symbols of that hostile environment being set by us, the elite of political power, was the immigration vans. What they said was, “Go home or face arrest”, and then, like some sort of buy-one-get-one-free ad in a supermarket, “106 arrests last week in your area”. You look at that and you think, “Well, actually, that is factually correct: if you are illegal, then we wish you to go home. That is right”. But what an environment, and what a way to state your message. Of course, that did not just go over the TV screens in the United Kingdom or on our own “News at Ten” and other bulletins. It went worldwide. That is the problem about the UK brand that has been created by some of these actions.
What we have managed to do through this, certainly over the new year period, is fundamentally upset our allies in the European Union, the leaders of Bulgaria and Romania. Perhaps even more important, we have upset Donald Tusk, the leader in Poland, one of our potentially greatest allies in Europe in much of what we want to deliver. Most of Eastern Europe was alongside us in our agendas around Europe. Much of that friendship, that work we have done in the past to encourage them into the union has been thrown away by the sort of attitudes that we have shown at a governmental level within the United Kingdom. I highly regret that.
I say to noble Lords opposite that I was filled with great sadness last year, I think it was, when the Labour Party apologised for letting in our colleagues from the new member states of Eastern Europe on their accession to the European Union. There we had a smart, competitive advantage. The best and the brainiest and the most valuable of those citizens came across, first, not to other parts of continental Europe and the eurozone but to us and to Ireland—to our countryside and to our factories, certainly in the far south-west. It was a great boost to our economy. I am very sad that the Labour Party has admitted being wrong and said sorry for that. I think it was one of the great things that Britain did in fulfilling what it said in terms of enlargement of the European Union being important.
My noble friend Lord King mentioned that perhaps we need to think again about mobility in Europe. Perhaps we do, but it was Great Britain that pushed the agenda of enlargement, knowing exactly what the rules were. We were the country that pushed enlargement most, and now, because of that move back again, we are looking very strange within a European context.
This hostile environment shows a country, economy and population that are naturally successful and confident as being inward-looking and fearful. That is not helped by our continued bickering over the rest of European Union.
I was privileged to come into this House in 2006, during the previous Government. One of the things that struck me then was that every year we would have what I called “panicked Home Office syndrome”. There would be a Bill coming into Parliament every session to make the Government look tough on terrorism, or tough on crime. Most of them would be incredibly long Bills, and they took a long time to go through—but most of the powers were already there, and once the Bills were passed they were not implemented. They were not about effect but about headlines; they were about the Government making themselves look tough. I worry that this might start again in terms of the immigration debate because, as noble Lords have already said, in many ways this is not an issue that needs to be dealt with by legislation. I am sure that some aspects should be, but really it is about the competent management of the government that manage these areas—in this case, primarily the Home Office.
In the provisions of the Bill—and many noble Lords have said this already, so I will not delay the House—I am concerned that there is a risk of pushing illegal immigration, which is wrong and needs to be solved, further underground. It is a problem of discrimination, potentially, by landlords in this case—probably not so much by the clearing banks and with current accounts, but certainly by landlords. It is also about the authorities. We have had a couple of examples. I know Chinese restaurants in the south-west that have been raided several times. I cannot think of one instance in which any European or British restaurant or fish and chip shop in Cornwall or Devon has been raided, but ethnic restaurants are targeted by the authorities. This degrades our authority. It is the wrong way to approach this, but it is a temptation. I suspect it will continue.
There are some good things, though. Exit controls clearly make a lot of sense. I quite like being able to walk through an airport where I do not have to check out, but I agree that it is quite a good control. Even there, we often forget as Members of this House that we are members of a common travel area. The UK wilfully does not have control over its own borders: we share them with the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and, more importantly, the Republic of Ireland. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister whether the border checks and these various other aspects of border control are to be implemented by the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the same scale and at the same time. I suspect that that is not completely the case.
On the NHS, I fundamentally believe that we should have a welcoming society which, on the whole, resists charging visitors for their medical conditions. If we have tourism with people coming for specific medical treatment, that is clearly wrong, but otherwise we should err on the side of generosity rather than trying to tighten up something that is probably not manageable.
Sham marriages are clearly an issue and need further attention as well, although a lot of those powers are already there. However, as my noble friend Lord Avebury asked, where is the legislation that also says that British citizens should have the unimpeded right to marry who they wish? I do not see that in the Bill. It would seem to be a fundamental right—something that we would want to offer all our fellow citizens—yet we cannot have it at the moment.
The main problem I see is one of fear. Yes, it is a fear of immigration but also of everything behind it. There are two main strands to the solution for that. One is the boring one of management: managing the process better and properly, not through legislation. The other strand, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, is that of leadership, in that we have to make it clear that the exchange of immigration and emigration—all the circular movement of people—is generally positive. It needs to be managed and not to be a drain on the UK economy. I am certain that it is quite the opposite of that. We need to put out that message, rather than being completely defensive about it.
I congratulate the Government, as other noble Lords have done, on our foreign aid budget, which makes sure that the problem of excessive migration will go down over the long term. I am also delighted to see that we are not following the example of Australia by using the Royal Navy to push North Sea ferries back into the territorial waters of our European colleagues. Neither are we committing asylum seekers to the island of Sark, which would be the equivalent of some of the Australian operations.
I will finish on this point. We have just had a report from the Government on flooding in the south-west. I come from Cornwall, where one of our big concerns has been to try to get the message out that Cornwall and Devon are still accessible. You can still come and visit us to enjoy our attractions. You can come and locate your business there and you will not be isolated. We have put out the hashtag #openforbusiness for the south-west. If we are not careful and continue with this hostile environment for migration, we will have to start to persuade people by saying strongly that we are open for business in the United Kingdom as well.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Teverson. His combative style shows that his pillaging instincts, at least in a verbal sense, have not been forgotten, and I will come back to some of his comments in a moment.
The majority of the speeches we have had and the briefings we have received on the Bill have focused on two aspects: first, the risk that the Bill poses to the economic advantages that this country is said to enjoy as a result of immigration and, secondly, that the proposed tightening-up of the country’s immigration procedures represents an undue restriction on what my noble friend on the Front Bench called in his opening remarks “access to justice”. Those are serious charges, to which I wish to return in a few minutes.
At the outset, however, I may disappoint the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Winston, because I want in this Second Reading debate to declare my support for what the Government are proposing today. For those of us engaged in the political process, there are few policies which our fellow citizens regard as being as counterintuitive, if not downright illogical, than those surrounding immigration rules and procedures. The regulars in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck find it hard to understand how people who have come here illegally, and who may have committed crimes or enjoyed access to our non-contributory health and social services, seem to be able to avoid removal for an inordinate length of time. I am not suggesting that the only way to access political wisdom is via the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck but the regulars have a point. If we are not to be seen as being out of touch we need to address those concerns to maintain public confidence, as my noble friend also said his opening remarks. The Bill at least addresses some of those concerns and that is why I support it. I quite agree that there are issues and details that we shall need to explore and discuss in Committee but the Government are broadly on the right track.
I referred a moment ago to the question of access to justice. I attach great importance to that. Members of your Lordships’ House may be aware that I am a trustee of Fair Trials International and that I was extremely critical of the Government’s proposals to reduce the time in which an appeal can be made against a European arrest warrant from 14 days to seven days. That proposal formed part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill which your Lordships’ House has just finished considering. My noble friend on the Front Bench felt the full force of my disappointment, which continues as he was not prepared to shift the Government’s position. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, may be smiling but it was also pretty disappointing that noble Lords opposite would not support that either. When I hear them talking about how important it is to get these procedures right, the question worth bearing in mind is whether you are going to talk the talk or walk the walk. But—and this is an important but—I had to recognise that in the case of European arrest warrants, at least, there was a substantial proportion of unmeritorious appeals, which clogged up the system at considerable expense. I expect and fear that the immigration appeal process has similar characteristics and is therefore in need of streamlining. Therefore, while access to justice is very important, it is not a card that trumps all others. There are balancing issues of fairness to other law-abiding members of society and of the appropriate use of scarce resources in our health and social services. Finally, there are balancing issues of the interests of the long-suffering British taxpayer who foots the bill. No doubt we shall examine these balances in detail in Committee.
In the rest of my remarks, I want to set these proposals in the wider issue of the economic advantage that many claim the country enjoys from immigration. Here, I want to follow some of the themes that my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater was developing in his interesting remarks earlier. I do so in the context of immigration as a whole. I recognise that the Bill seeks to address only immigration from outside the EU but, in this Second Reading debate, we should step back and look at the jigsaw as a whole—not just the piece that the Bill represents. I argue strongly that to consider immigration only as regards economic activity is to adopt too narrow a prism. We need to consider also the impacts of immigration on other issues, such as quality of life and social cohesion.
I should make it clear at the beginning—my noble friend Lady Hamwee made this point—that, lest my remarks should be misinterpreted, when I talk about the native population I am talking about the native population irrespective of race, colour or creed. The basic facts may be simply stated. The population of this country is going up by 1,100 people a day—a large village or a small town every week. Our population, which is currently 63 million, is estimated to reach 70 million by 2025. That is an increase of 7 million, or 14 cities the size of Manchester. “No worries”, say many people, “Only 5% of Britain is built upon”. It is probably about 12% of England but it is a small proportion, they say. However, the population is not evenly spread. England has now overtaken the Netherlands as the most densely populated country in Europe. Furthermore, the UK is expected to have the largest European population by about 2030, having by then overtaken Germany. Let us think about the position of the south of England when a goodly proportion of those 14 Manchesters come to be built, as I expect that they will be, south of a line from Bristol to the Wash. To suggest that there are no consequent quality-of-life issues is fanciful. The heated public debates that we are having about building on the green belt, expanding Heathrow Airport and the construction of HS2 are the first outriders of what will be increasingly challenging public policy issues.
There is also the issue of social cohesion, referred to by my noble friend in his opening remarks and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in his interesting contribution. If the default option is to encourage immigration, we run the risk of crowding out our native born. Crowding out can take many forms. If we consider football’s Premier League, an undeniably successful British activity that earns this country millions, we should also consider how few British players play in the Premier League. Does it matter that 200 or 300 young British males are unable to realise their dreams? In the grand scheme of things, it probably does not, although it matters rather more if you are one of the 200 or 300. It matters particularly to the black minority community, who proportionately provide a large number of those who play football at the highest level.
Universities UK may be briefing us, and undoubtedly has briefed us, about the impact of these proposals, but I hope it has read the report on higher education, published in October 2012, that drew attention to the increasing shortage of home-grown postgraduate students as a result of the increasing number of people coming from overseas to pursue postgraduate education here. Below those two quite small, perhaps rather atypical, examples are thousands of our fellow countrymen who may find their aspirations and ambitions if not shattered at least limited. We risk creating or perhaps reinforcing a sullen, discontented underclass—and especially where that underclass is a minority group, we risk creating an atmosphere in which extremism may flourish.
On Thursday 6 February, in the Moses Room, the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, who is not in his place, initiated a debate on social mobility. The speeches focused, unsurprisingly, on what can be done to hasten the “up” escalator. But the darker side of social mobility, about which we prefer not to talk, is the “down” escalator. This one carries people who for a wide variety of reasons have found themselves disadvantaged. While the “down” escalator can apply to individuals, it can apply to countries too. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, talked about the impact of the “down” escalator in that we are perhaps attracting to this country skilled people who can help to stabilise less advantaged, underdeveloped failing states. Although we may benefit from that in the short run, in the long run we may be creating a yet more dangerous world.
Finally, there is the argument that we need immigration to look after our ageing population. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I have discussed this issue in the past. If we follow such a course we will be, in the famous words of Sir David Attenborough, engaging in a gigantic Ponzi population scheme. For today’s young people become tomorrow’s old people. I should like to share some figures with the House. In 2003 the dependency ratio of workers to pensioners was 3.7 to 1—3.7 workers to each pensioner. We know that in 2050 there will be 17.1 million pensioners. If we maintain the ratio we will need 63.4 million workers. Yet on the same projection we know that we will have only 36 million. That is a gap of 27 million. That means that we would need a population not of 70 million, but of 100 million, which is 50% above our present level. These 100 million would in due course become pensioners, requiring still more people to look after them. These are not the remarks of a little Englander determined to pull up the drawbridge.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the noble Lord’s arithmetic take into account the fact that the pension age will be increasing during this period?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. We could certainly change the ratio by increasing the pension age, but it would not remove the problem. It might obviate it: it might not be 27 million; it might be 20 million. But I accept that a change in the pension age will make a difference.
No one with any knowledge of the history of our country can be unaware of the vital contribution that new arrivals have made to its life: its vitality, diversity and dynamism. However, given the UK’s, and particularly England’s, geographical constraints, which do not exist in the same way for the United States, a country that is often used as an example for us to follow as regards immigration, we are approaching a point at which we must begin a balanced, calm debate about the interaction of size of population with economic advantage, quality of life and social cohesion. The Bill before us today is a first small step in the process to ensure that in principle those who come here legally make a reasonable contribution to our society while those who are here illegally are speedily removed. That is why the Bill has my support.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, if ever courageous, strategic leadership was required, it is on the extremely contentious and all-consuming issue of immigration. We need leadership that is determined to stand by values and principle, and has a sense of vision for the future of our society. We certainly do not want ambivalence or—worse—deliberately or in effect playing to myopic or xenophobic prejudice, or to lack of understanding, or to the sensationalism of the sinister, populist elements of the media. We must realise that we will never appease or contain such dangerous irrationality. We will be swallowed by it unless we stand up to it.
There are of course huge issues within the context of a consensus that an open-door policy is not a practicality. Migration is a global issue. The noble Lord, Lord King, spoke powerfully about this. There is a desperate need for internationally and regionally agreed strategies—not least within the European Union—within which individual nations can work out their own detailed policies and apply them. We also need a sense of perspective. When we get so preoccupied by the pressures of immigration in this country, do we remember the people of Jordan, Turkey or Lebanon? The immediacy of the issues facing them dwarfs any concerns that we have in this country.
The pressures are political, economic and climatic. They are also the consequences of an accelerating trend towards globalisation of the market, with freer movement of goods and finances, but not people. That is a gigantic flaw in a market. In a genuine market people go to where the work is. Unless we can agree international and regional strategies to meet the reality of the contradiction, so-called illegal immigration will be with us for ever in one form or another.
We also need to be honest with ourselves about immigration’s impact on our economy. It is really not acceptable that we should be proceeding with immigration policy on the basis of generalised hunches about its effect. There are clearly authentically different interpretations of whether immigration is a good thing for our economy. This needs to be thought out very clearly, and I suggest that it should be a prior requisite before one starts having new policies on migration.
Then there are the pressures on local communities, where the largest burden of immigration falls. What are we doing to ensure that where there is the largest influx of migration, the public services get special attention and support? What are we doing to ensure that valiant work on integration is receiving the kind of level of support that is essential for it to be as successful as it should be?
On security, an issue that has constantly concerned me, we need friends in the world, not embittered and alienated people who can become prey to extremist recruiters. That is why the fairness and justice of our immigration policy and its implementation must be transparent. That is why those implementing it must at all times do so with sensitivity and humanity—of course because these are central to a decent Britain but also because it is unforgivable, in our closely interwoven and fragile world, to be building up resentment. If we do this, when it all goes wrong we cannot put all the responsibility and blame on those on the front line; again, we need strong and consistent leadership that sets the tone.
On the issue of asylum, let us strip all the detail away. What is the underlying drive in our asylum policy? Is it, when everything is said and done, to deny asylum and keep people out? Or is it a commitment to the principle that asylum is something crucially important in the name of humanity for people who have been persecuted and are subject to oppression? Surely the ideal for Britain would be that we should bust a gut to ensure that if a person has a case for asylum, it is upheld and sustained, not that everything is mobilised by the state to try to prove that there is no case. Some of the recent stories about what goes on in what amounts to the interrogation of asylum seekers makes me almost at times ashamed to call myself British.
With regard to the issue of employment, what nonsense it is, when people are waiting for a decision, to deny them the dignity of supporting themselves and contributing to the British economy. Many of them could contribute very powerfully to the economy. Then there is the issue of the well-being of children. Yes, we are signed up to many of the conventions and international charters on the rights of the child—indeed, we were pioneers—but surely, just as Britons, we want to live in a society where the well-being of the child is paramount in all situations, and not just another difficult element to be managed. How do we help the child who is caught up in the dreadful complexities of a situation?
On the issue of universities and higher education, others have spoken powerfully and I know that other noble Lords will speak in this debate. I am involved—marginally, these days—in the governance of three universities. Of course we need to win friends in the world by their experiences here in higher education, and of course there is a contribution to the financial well-being of our universities by students from overseas, but the issue that always preoccupies me is this: how, in our highly interdependent world, can we have a relevant centre of higher education and excellence that is not international in character? The very international community that makes a university enhances the quality of the education that is going on there, and indeed enhances its relevance. I wish that we could talk more about this.
Then there is the issue of family. We like to preach about the importance of families and to argue that they are fundamental to the stability of society, yet we can condone immigration policies that in effect break and wreck families. They are almost designed to do so, and are sometimes operated with a callousness that is unbelievable. If we really believe in families, our immigration policy should reflect that.
Then there is a vast array of legal issues, as well presented by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. They will all need careful scrutiny as the Bill goes forward: removal; enforcement; bail; biometrics; appeals, especially the practicability of appeals from abroad; access to services, including private rented accommodation; not least the possible stimulation of racism; bank accounts; penalties on employers; the deprivation of citizenship; and, underlying everything, the upholding of human rights. There is a lot of work to be done on this Bill.
As the Bill is given detailed scrutiny, there will be a need for constant awareness of the implications for real people and the real situations out there, away from Whitehall and Westminster. It is therefore essential to listen to those in many of the valiant front-line NGOs that grapple every day with those realities. How we operate immigration policy has tremendous implications for successful race relations within the UK itself. I believe that creation is about diversity. I also believe that we need to celebrate diversity in our society and recognise, overall, the hugely positive impact on the UK of immigration across the centuries.
As some colleagues will know, I recently spent time in hospital and am now undertaking quite intensive physiotherapy. My God, I have seen internationalism at work in our health service—I have experienced it in hospital, and now, where I am undertaking my physio, one of my physiotherapists is Asian. Her grandfather was Indian, from Tanzania, and her husband, a doctor, is also from that part of the world. I could not have a more first-class physiotherapist than she, except that my physiotherapist at home is also outstanding—and that makes another point about recognising potential in society, as he is blind.
I want us to have an immigration policy that genuinely reflects the realities of the international pressures and challenges that we are up against—we cannot be escapist—but is something of which we are proud: part of a profile of a decent United Kingdom, moving forward in strengthening the reality of international co-operation.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, a great deal has already been said that I was planning to say, and all I plan to do now is add a few details. At the very start of the debate, many hours ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said that there had been concern about immigration before and that this was nothing new. I do not entirely agree. At the moment there is a very ugly mood of xenophobia in Britain, much stronger than anything that existed before. The Daily Mail, the Daily Express, UKIP and even some Conservative Back-Benchers have created a picture of immigration that poisons the discussion of a very serious subject. It is a picture of a huge wave of immigrants who come to Britain to take our jobs, thus increasing unemployment and depressing wages, to abuse our National Health Service and to take advantage of our social services—in a word, to scrounge on our welfare state. It is now suggested that millions of Bulgarians and Romanians are coming to invade us. It is a mood that says, “We want our country back” and “Keep out the foreigners”. It is a very dangerous mood because it is coupled with a total rejection and mistrust of all politics: illustrated by Russell Brand and, “We shouldn’t vote”, “They’re all the same” and “They’re all in it for themselves”. It is a very dangerous mood indeed.
It could worsen because at the moment it is foreigners who are the objective. This mood is behind the strong rise in support for UKIP. At the moment, it is foreigners who they single out, but there could be others soon. It could in time be different races or ethnic minorities. It could be Jews. It has happened before in the history of other countries.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee and many other noble Lords pointed out, there is a need for leadership. The European Commission has complained that there are Ministers who seldom provide that leadership. A lot of the speeches and rhetoric about immigration are based on myth. This is certainly part of the perception abroad. The Government lead the way, but there are some voices in government who seem to pour fuel on the flames. One of the examples given by my noble friend Lord Teverson and others was the appalling, terrible bus advertisement. That was fortunately withdrawn. It suggested that there is a far greater problem with illegal immigrants than there is—we do not know exactly how big it is—and the whole tenor was thoroughly nasty and anti-immigrant.
Recently, the Prime Minister shelved the report on migrants commissioned by the Home Secretary. It was supposed to be an answer to the Commission’s complaints about the way that the topic is being dealt with in this country. The Commission has said that there is concern in many countries, but nowhere is the debate so full of distortion. It seems that the report was completed by the Home Office at the request of the Home Secretary, but it has been shelved. Why? What on earth is the reason? Is it perhaps because its answers did not stand up? If it is suppressed, it will add to the suspicion that there is more than just a whiff of xenophobia in the Home Office itself. There have been too many cases of officials in the border agency being condemned because of their treatment of people due for deportation and their insensitive and unjustified refusals of applications by asylum seekers. My noble friend Lady Barker referred to the kind of questions asked of gay asylum seekers from Uganda fleeing from the persecution there. There is a very nasty whiff of xenophobia as well as anti-gay prejudice.
As many noble Lords have said, this Bill should ease worries about immigration, but instead it may well increase the chance of injustice being suffered by immigrants. It will need very careful scrutiny and serious amendment. One of my sadnesses, which is shared with my noble friend Lord Teverson, is about Labour attitudes. In the other place, during the passage of the Bill, it seemed that the Labour Party was interested only in making restrictions on immigrants tighter. It was not so much concerned about the libertarian issues at stake.
The other subject that has come up, which has been very eloquently explored, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, is the question of students. I am rather mystified about the position of students because I now understand that there are separate statistics about students and non-students but that we cannot exclude students from the official immigration figures because of some international objection. What about the Americans, the Australians or the New Zealanders? What happens in their case? Why have they been able to say that they exclude students from the immigration statistics? It makes a huge difference, not only because the way we have approached the question of students has led to the extraordinary situation that the numbers are marginally declining. It is an appalling situation and most unexpected.
Everybody has now said how important students are to this country. It is not only the billions—lots of different figures in billions have been given—that they bring to the Exchequer but that they add enormously to the attraction of our universities by their presence. When they return home, as most of them do, which is why they are swelling the immigration figures, they are ambassadors for the services this country has to offer, and if they stay they are enormously important not only to the health service but to industry which needs the skills which are in short supply. My first question is: what about these immigration figures? Why is it that we cannot follow the example of America, Australia and New Zealand? It seems an obvious example to follow. Secondly, is there going to be some way, as some noble Lords have suggested, in which we can exclude students from this Bill because that would be a wonderful achievement?
Finally, I want to say something about appeals. It has been said that the reforms will clog up the immigration tribunals because of all the cases of judicial review. Clause 4 substitutes for 17 previous grounds of appeal against decisions such as refusal of leave to enter or to remain or decisions to deport only three grounds: refusal of a protection claim or a human rights claim or a decision to revoke a person’s protection status. An immigration expert I know tells me that the effect of these changes will be that many will now rely on human rights grounds of appeal, which will make for many more complicated cases and will swamp the work of tribunals, so two factors may swamp them: the increase in judicial reviews and human rights cases. If grounds of appeal are constricted and so many of the appeals succeed, officials will have even less incentive to be circumspect because they will know that their judgment is absolute and final and cannot be challenged.
It is clear from the many points made in this debate that this Bill needs the kind of scrutiny which it did not get in the other place. It needs serious scrutiny and serious reform, and I hope there will be success in substantially amending this Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this Second Reading of the Immigration Bill is not taking place in a climate of public debate which is particularly propitious to the calm and balanced consideration of an extremely sensitive issue. Quite the contrary, there are screaming headlines in the tabloid press, paparazzi turning up at Luton Airport to interview any Romanian or Bulgarian on whom they can lay their hands and the two main parties being tempted into a race to the bottom with UKIP which they cannot hope, and should not want, to win. These are now the drivers of a debate which risks doing this country lasting economic harm and overwhelming our traditional values of tolerance and openness.
Amendments to the Bill were moved in the other place which would, if they had been adopted, have been contrary to our treaty-based international obligations. Fortunately, they were not so adopted, but senior Ministers did not oppose them. I am sure that this House’s consideration of the Bill will not go off down that dangerous road, and I pay tribute to the Minister who started the debate today on a note, which I thought was thoroughly admirable, of calm and cautious reflection. I just wish the substance of what he was introducing was a bit closer in conformity to the tone he used in introducing it.
I hope that in this debate, as we have already heard, people will be prepared to look more objectively and dispassionately at the arguments for, as well as those against, this country remaining reasonably, but not irresponsibly, open to immigration. There is a crying need for more research and an evidence-based approach to this issue, and for it to be looked at in a wider context than just that of our own national prism. About 18 months ago your Lordships’ EU Select Committee published a report on the EU’s general approach to migration and mobility, which highlighted not only the real threat from a rising tide of illegal immigration but also the need—if Europe is to compete effectively in the world of tomorrow—to continue to attract and admit skills from outside to supplement those of our ageing populations.
However, the main thrust of my intervention in this debate is not those broader issues, but rather the negative impact that some of the measures in this Bill could have on our higher education sector and on students coming to this country for full-time undergraduate or postgraduate education. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of the council of the University of Kent. I begin, however, by giving credit to this Government for having taken action against the abuse of our immigration controls by dodgy language schools. That action was necessary and justified, even if the revelations of tonight’s “Panorama” programme show that there is still some way to go.
Other aspects of the Government’s immigration policy have not, however, been so benign. There is now a real threat from that policy, to what is by any calculation one of our largest and potentially most buoyant export industries: the provision of undergraduate and postgraduate education at our universities. I am sorry to repeat the figures, but I feel, particularly since I did not manage to recognise at all the one figure provided by the Minister when he opened the debate, that they are really alarming. The Higher Education Statistics Authority, whose figures for the academic year 2012-13 came out just last month, showed an overall drop of 0.9%—not huge I agree, but the first drop since the authority began setting figures in 1994—and a drop of 1% in students who were actually starting their education courses in the present year. The drop in postgraduates was 4.5%, and that is extremely important because it is a very profitable part of the universities’ offer. Figures for students coming here from India, as my noble friend Lord Bilimoria pointed out, have dropped by 49% in the last two years; from Pakistan by 21%; and from other non-EU countries by smaller, but still significant, figures.
This is all taking place at a time when our main international competitors are expanding their position in what is a rapidly growing market. The US figures for the same period are up 7.2%; the figures for Australia are up 6.9%. Those figures, surely, should be a wake-up call to the Government about their policies. Let us not forget that the negative aspects of this Bill have yet to come into play at all. This is what has happened on the basis of existing policies, and now we are piling Pelion upon Ossa. A number of the measures in this Bill are likely to make that trend worse, not better. They include the removal of the appeal rights for students and staff applying for further leave to remain; the introduction of a surcharge for access to NHS services; the requirement on private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants; and the scope for the Government to further raise fees for visa and immigration services. That is quite a list of disincentives for anyone who is sitting there weighing up the relative merits of this country against others as a possible place to go for their higher education.
All this is completely unnecessary, if only the Government would heed the pleas of no less than four Select Committees of both Houses to stop treating full-time undergraduates and postgraduate students as economic migrants for public policy purposes. This is not a statistical problem. It is not a matter of a statistical quibble. The Minister addressed that aspect in earlier debates that we have had, but that is not the heart of the matter. The Government can, if they really wish, or feel obligated to do so, continue to include students in their submission of statistics to the United Nations or whoever it is they believe they are obligated to produce those statistics for, but they do not need—and that is a matter totally in our own hands—to treat these students as economic migrants for public policy purposes.
It is not even as if bona fide undergraduate and postgraduate students are the focus of the rather febrile public debate that is going on over immigration; they are not. If most people were asked whether such students, who contribute substantial sums to our economy and are actually creating jobs in higher education for our own citizens, are economic migrants, they would rightly be completely baffled. So why has the Government not simply stopped treating them as such?
There are serious questions to be answered here, and I hope that when the Minister comes to reply to the debate, and in Committee and on Report, we can hope for a more considered response from the Government than they have hitherto provided. Why cannot such students simply be excluded from the scope of this Bill? We are talking about a sector of the economy which is responsible for massive invisible exports—£10.2 billion in the year 2011-12, and more by now—and which is currently second in the world league table of a market that is growing rapidly. We do not have that many industries like that, frankly, and certainly not so many that we can lightly afford to further damage their prospects by what I accept are inadvertently and unintendedly conceived government policies.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in the debate this evening, and to hear the wide range of opinions, but one thing surprises me—neither of our UKIP members is here or taking part in this debate. Usually when we debate in this House we debate matters that affect us in this country. Yet this Bill looks beyond our borders, to those in different circumstances, with different needs and from different cultures; those used to different ways of life that may seem strange to us. These are people who, because they are different, may seem difficult to understand and respond to. Because of this difference, people are suspicious of them and questions arise. This can lead to hostility, because traditional ways of life seem to be threatened and disappearing.
We live in a changing world, a different world. The Welsh word for looking to the past and longing for it is “hiraeth”, and there is a hiraeth here for what used to be. I could go on for hours about Wales as it used to be, some 50 or 60 years ago. But it is not like that any longer. Things have changed, and in spite of the memories, we have to face this changing situation in which we find ourselves. I could remember—well, I do not really—the Liberal Wales of 1906. That would have been a tremendous time to live in Wales. But that is yesterday, and yesterday changes and we are here in a new century.
Suspicion and hostility are natural things, but they can be replaced by trust and acceptance. This owes a great deal to the media. If they foster hostility and poison, it does a great disservice to us in so many ways. Our future is to have people who understand and accept each other, which means that our national curriculum should have that sort of emphasis—that we accept, learn and share experiences, and schools are places where hostility ends and where children of different nationalities and backgrounds blend together. We should say how much we appreciate the work that goes on in so many of these schools in overcoming what would be a hostility. But the newspapers that are read at home create that hostility. We cannot legislate for that, of course, but we must try to influence it so that, when people read about it, they know whether they are reading a balanced account of what is happening.
Does this Bill help or hinder? It is a question which we hope, as the Bill passes through this House, we might be able to answer by saying that this is a Bill about hospitality and not hostility. Much of the Bill deals with and affects those seeking asylum in the UK. I am proud to be president of the Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary. There are many questions that I would like to raise, and which will be raised as the Bill proceeds through the House. Let us look, first, at the question of work. I have a Private Member’s Bill which has had its First Reading—whether it will go any further I do not know—and which tries to reduce the time from 12 months to six months that asylum seekers have to wait before they can try for a job in the United Kingdom. In an ideal world, there would be no need to worry about adding such an amendment about reducing the time from 12 months to six months; no asylum seeker would be waiting for a decision for such a long time.
Successive Governments have utterly failed to come close to what I would suggest is the ideal. We force asylum seekers to be dependent on the state; many of them try to exist on £36.62 per week, because of decisions, through no fault of their own, that keep them out of work for all this time. If we had this reduction, we could reduce the burden on the taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are able to work will no longer need to be supported. They may instead contribute to the economy through taxes and consumer spending. I know that my coalition partners always stress how wonderful it is to have hard-working families; in every broadcast and every speech they talk about hard-working families. Yet they are denying people who would be hard-working families from undertaking any job whatever.
Eleven other European Union countries already permit asylum seekers to work after six months or less: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. They all permit this to happen—so why do not we also? The EU reception conditions directive has reduced the period when asylum seekers can be excluded from the labour market to nine months. But we have not signed up to this directive. We are putting ourselves so out of step with other nations. Let us not forget that 5,500 asylum seekers have been waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum claim. I suggest that we have a lot of catching up to do, to catch up with other European nations, as we go through Committee.
Secondly, I want to mention the children’s aspect to this Bill. I supported the coalition at the beginning because we promised to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. At its peak, there were over 2,000 children a year in immigration detention, often in the most heart-breaking of circumstances. This has been reduced; in December, it was down to 24 children between the ages of five to 17. I hope—and the suggestion has already been made—that this detention will now be enshrined in statute and that no longer will any child be detained for immigration purposes.
I also suggest that this House must review the Bill’s current definition of who counts as an asylum-seeking child. A number of clauses seek to limit the definition to those who are British-born or who have been here for seven years or more. Worryingly, this excludes most asylum-seeking children, many of whom come here as teenagers. There were 1,125 applications from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2012 and 835 applications in the first three quarters of 2013. Troublingly, the vast majority of these would be excluded from the definitions in the Bill. So I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that they, too, will be included. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989 make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in any decision that concerns children. The Home Office has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That must remain the case—and, again, I ask the Minister to confirm that point.
Another problem that is arising now is the fact that free legal advice and representation is no longer available for immigration purposes; that has been the case since 1 April 2013. Only cases in which an individual has an asylum or protection claim are covered, while non-asylum claims have been cut. I suggest that lack of legal assistance undermines a person’s ability to put forward the necessary evidence and legal arguments and have their cases fairly determined. For example, to make an application under Article 8, it is necessary to gather extensive evidence demonstrating the extent to which a child has developed a personal life and connections within the UK. Expert evidence from psychologists is often required, as might be evidence from a child’s carer, teacher, therapist or medical professional. It is vital not only to understand and obtain evidence but also the child must be able to present it appropriately. This requires guidance from legal professionals to ensure that all relevant matters informing a best interests assessment are addressed. In the face of such difficulty, there is anecdotal evidence that some young people who came to the UK as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are, thanks to cuts in legal aid, being forced to try and represent themselves. Is that the best that we can do for these children?
Up until their 18th birthday, asylum-seeking children are protected in this nation but it is a sad state of affairs that then, on their 18th birthday, everything can change. They are here for most of their formative years, developing their personality, friends, and language as well as culture, and then suddenly they are deported. Suddenly, they are not welcome—suddenly, they do not count. I can hardly imagine. We speak of the withdrawal of citizenship—is there anything worse than this withdrawal, at the age of 18, of the status of children and young people? I hear tales of terror and desperation—how one lad pushed a wardrobe against the door of his bedroom in case a dawn raid descended on him. These are stories that make you weep, because they are not in our tradition of being humane and respectable in every way towards those who are most vulnerable in our communities. I am very proud of so much that has been in the past. We can deny and reject that or we can continue our historic contribution to ensuring that every individual who seeks to visit, study, settle or claim sanctuary here is treated with respect and compassion.
I shall end my speech with something that I have said before. An asylum seeker, failed or successful, is a human being—just like every one of us in this Chamber.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, my name was mistakenly left off the speakers list, although I had put it down last week. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, has withdrawn from the debate and the government Chief Whip has permitted me to step into her slot. I hope that your Lordships will consent to that.
I have been glad to see that we have looked at this issue in the round and recognised that the impact of poor immigration reform has a very real impact on the future of our country. Like others, I wish to emphasise the incredible impact that it has if we lose whole generations of students who choose to go to other nations where they are not facing the kind of hurdles and hostilities that seem to them to be presented if they apply to come to a British university. The consequence is that we lose important relationships—friends who take on leading roles in their countries, not just in politics but in professions, education and all manner of roles. We lose all this social and diplomatic capital as well as any financial benefit. It is short-sighted of government not to recognise that.
However, I wanted to concentrate our minds a little on a conflation that takes place. We all speak proudly of our tradition on asylum and say that we provide a safe haven for those who have been persecuted; yet, at the same time, we often confuse their position with that of economic migrants who may have come on a visa to visit, overstay and become illegal. Their position should be considered differently, because most of my work in the immigration field has been with people who have sought asylum, sometimes for different reasons, and their asylum application has failed—not always because they have not been persecuted but simply because providing proof has become difficult.
It is important that this House knows that this country detains more people under immigration powers than any other country in Europe, apart from Greece. While Greece detains more, it does so for much shorter periods and at the point when people arrive at the border. We are unique in that we detain indefinitely. We do not have a cap on detention, as other countries do. That experience of indefinite detention causes profound mental anguish to the individuals concerned. We use detention in ways that cause enormous distress. People who have often already endured horrors beyond our imagining end up in custody. My experience is particularly with women who have claimed asylum and then been detained. Their suffering is a disgraceful indictment of our system. Lots of detained people show signs of mental health problems during detention. We cannot remove them because their homeland is unsafe, they have no travel papers or there is some other reason. Many of the women have experienced sexual violation and degradation of the most terrible kind, even if, because of a lack of corroboration, they have been unable to cross the barrier of the culture of disbelief that exists within the UK Border Agency.
The organisation Detention Action has reported on long-term detainees and found that ultimately only a third were moved or deported because, in the end, they manage to persuade the authorities that they should be allowed to stay. However, that happens often after years, or certainly many months, in detention. I am afraid that the United Kingdom is one of the few countries in Europe that has no time limit on detention. One thing that is a source of surprise to me is that Sweden manages to negotiate the voluntary departure of 82% of refused asylum seekers. Why is that possible there but not here? We exacerbate the situation of vulnerable people if we remove bail, as is intended in the Bill.
I strongly urge the Minister and Members of this House to read a report called Detained, produced by Women for Refugee Women, an organisation that I know well. Read it and your hearts will break. So many of these women have experienced terrible persecution, yet the process they face in this country is neither fair nor just. We take a pride in ourselves as being protectors of liberty and believers in the rule of law. Unfortunately, we do not see that happening in many of these cases. The stories in that report are hair-raising. I feel strongly that any woman who is claiming that she has experienced rape, sexual violence or other forms of torture of a sexual nature should not be in detention. Where these issues are raised in a claim, the woman should be released to continue her claim in the community. There are groups which will provide the kind of support that they need. Certainly, no men should be employed in roles in places such as Yarl’s Wood where they come into contact with women who have experienced this kind of abuse. Just think how hard it is for traumatised women who have experienced multiple rape, often at the hands of men in uniforms, to then be surrounded by men in uniforms.
It should go without saying that pregnant women should not be detained. If a woman must be detained prior to removal, it should be for the shortest possible time after alternatives to detention have been meaningfully considered and explored. I urge on this House that we should be arguing in the debates on this Bill, and in Committee, for the introduction of a 28-day cap on any detention, after which people would have to be released into the community to continue their claim. The whole system is a bit of a farce. Proper legal advice has to be available to people who are seeking to make asylum applications, and I am fearful of the implications if that is not available.
We pretend that we have a fast-track system. That is not just an abuse of the human beings involved; it is an abuse of the English language—fast it is not. All we hear are claims about abuses of the system and the high numbers of appeals. Others have said, and I repeat, that the reason for the high number of appeals has been that the quality of decision-making at first instance is disgracefully poor. The high success level on appeal is not because we have a simpering judiciary who are all soft touches; it is actually because they consider these appeals and find in favour of the asylum seekers because they find that their cases have real and genuine merit.
Those who hyperventilate about criminals being allowed to resist deportation because of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights fail to realise that the numbers who succeed on that ground are very few indeed. It is perfectly reasonable to deport serious offenders who come from other parts of the world, but it is also important to consider how long a man or woman has lived in this country because we are sometimes talking about people who came to live here as children and then talking about deporting them to places that they do not even know and where they do not speak the language. We are also talking about people who have formed relationships; sometimes whole families would be torn apart by deportation orders or forced into upheaval if they are to go to the place to which the father of a family is being deported. Wives and children have to accept what is really deportation of them, too, when they have done no wrong. Children also have rights, and we must bear that in mind when we are considering these issues. This whole business of saying that we should almost automatically deport people flies in the face of the things that we should be proud of here in Britain—proper due process, individual consideration of cases and judicial discretion being applied.
Finally, I want to deal with the disgraceful decision to remove citizenship from those who have received British nationality. I know that the story is that only those who are a threat to national security will be endangered, so the rest of us can sleep easy, and that those who have acquired citizenship can sleep easy, because only people who have become British citizens will be affected. I ask those noble Lords who have become British citizens to think hard about what this means. We are told that it will rarely mean being rendered stateless. I want us to think about statelessness. This was a real issue after World War 2: the notion that someone could wander the earth without nationality and lose the protections that come with national identity. Why does it matter? It is because if we are abroad and some desperate situation befalls us we can call upon the help of our embassies. We can insist on our rights being protected. Without such assistance, who knows what could happen to us?
I will tell you what can happen. I have been acting for someone who had his citizenship removed 18 months ago while he was in Somalia, where his grandmother lives. His parents received this information in the post then, in a phone call, they were told to inform their son that he had 28 days to appeal. Making phone calls to Somalia is not very easy. The claim was that he was now a threat to national security: when asked how they knew this, no help was forthcoming. So we have to conjecture that the Government has somehow become privy to shared intelligence. This is unlikely to have been done by the Somalians; more likely by American intelligence. There is no embassy functioning in Somalia because it is in such chaos, so he was advised by his family, having received advice from the border agent who phoned them, to head for somewhere where he might be able to access consular support to lodge an appeal. He crossed the border into Djibouti and, blow me, was picked up by the secret police there. Could it be that locational intelligence came from the telephone contact with his parents? He was then thrown into jail, interrogated up hill and down dale. When asked his nationality, he said he was British. The guards returned to inform him that they were sorry but he was not being claimed by the British. He was no longer British: we had washed our hands of him. Having been interrogated by the Djibouti police, he was handed over to the United States security services present there. He was interrogated further, put on plane, a hood put over his head and flown to the United States of America. There was no extradition procedure; no due process in any court; no disclosure of the reasons for any of this; nothing. That is what happens when you are rendered stateless.
In this new world, where is law? Where is the rule of law of which we are so proud? No American citizen can have their citizenship removed, ever. We have no publicly available evidence as to what my client is supposed to have planned or done. Some countries do not allow dual nationality and Somalia was one of them. Since this happened to my client, that has now been changed. However, just think about it: he is a British citizen who has lived here since he was a tiny child. My client was rendered stateless when his citizenship was removed and Britain made it possible for a whole set of lawlessness and serious abuses of human rights to follow. It does not matter to me, at the moment, whether he is a threat to national security. What should concern this House is the removal of legal protections and safeguards, which is what statelessness means.
I am ashamed that we have sunk to this and will certainly be opposing aspects of the Bill. I hope the Minister will listen carefully, because we do have certain proud traditions in this country; we do offer asylum to people in need of protection; we do believe that people should be brought before courts if they have done things that are wrong. We do not believe in putting hoods on people’s heads, seizing them and transporting them to other places without any kind of court process. That is not what Britain stands for. That is not what we should allow. That is what statelessness means.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, it is not a good economic or political climate for immigration. With so much conflict in the Middle East and north Africa and more people on the move, this year will see increasing pre-election prejudice against immigrants, some of it in the House of Commons and some in the European Parliament. We have passed through such waves of xenophobia before. The media are full of stories about Greece’s leaking borders, record numbers of babies born to Bulgarians, Italy’s indomitable boat people and the Swiss—the Swiss—resisting migrants even from EU member states. In this atmosphere, the Immigration Bill cannot be dismissed as merely pandering to the UKIP wing of the Conservative Party, although it does that too. It is responding to a genuine public concern that, for all sorts of reasons, we are allowing in too many people.
It has been said that immigration debates are usually based on inadequate information, but a few years ago this House apparently offered a beacon of light. The Lords Economic Affairs Committee was recently described as a,
“bright spot in our political darkness”.
It takes a lot of careful reading to work out its real point of view. Its 2008 report on immigration challenged even my long-held belief that economic migration has been a benefit to this country. I had to think again whether it was right for the Government to put a cap on immigration numbers.
What concerns me today is that, in our laborious but legitimate efforts to reduce illegal migration, we are handing out harsh treatment to other people: genuine migrants, asylum seekers and students. In his unique contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, reminded us of the bigger picture. Asylum seekers should be seen in a category of their own since, in general, they seem to be genuinely fleeing from persecution and claim our sympathy provided they do not breach the rules. I trust that the Minister is not part of the coalition that sees human rights legislation, here or in Europe, purely as a vehicle of illegal claims for asylum.
UK Governments, of all persuasions, have come down on asylum seekers with successive and excessive legislation on matters such as detention and removal—as we have just heard—judicial review, legal aid, bail and access to healthcare. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Roberts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, have drawn attention to the length of time people now spend in detention centres without proper redress. This Bill is no exception to the trend. Let us take healthcare: Clauses 33 and 34 require certain immigrants to pay a so-called immigration health charge. As the JCHR says, this is not confined to illegal migrants but catches people who are lawfully in the UK. Clause 34 enables the Government to charge anyone without indefinite leave to remain for healthcare, even in emergencies and in most areas of primary health, although GP consultations will remain free.
The problem is that charging has been shown to discourage the more vulnerable patients, a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Médecins du Monde found that 73% of such patients in east London were not registered with a GP, over half of them had a poor understanding of the rules and 40% were unable to gather the necessary documents. Another study of 112 asylum seekers in Brixton found that 54% of such patients entitled to free healthcare had been turned away from mainstream GP surgeries. Health professionals have also written to express their concerns about the implementation of these proposals, whether they are feasible and how the cost of administration is going to be met.
The situation of children, especially those whose parents face deportation, has been mentioned several times by the right reverend Prelate and others. The Home Office recognises that this is a problem, but the Bill makes their plight even worse. Nearly one-third of appeals against deportation succeeded in 2012-13 and yet, under Clause 12—against the advice of the JCHR—people may be prevented from challenging their deportation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, much more needs to be done to improve initial decisions. We have said this for so many years. If people have children in the UK and they are forced to appeal from abroad without any access to the usual advice, this is bound to be damaging to the family. Judicial review is also going to be limited to those who do not pass the residence test. How can the Minister explain his claim that the Bill can protect such children?
Clause 14 seems to be an attack on Article 8 and Article 3 of the ECHR. This is a typical situation where a law, discredited by a few criminals, comes down on innocent families, especially on children with no control over their own situation. I fully accept that it is often a fine judgment, because it implies balancing the best interests of the child against the public interest concerning the parent. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, many children become victims of social exclusion when they are so treated. How does this clause tally with the Chikwamba case? That was an important decision by the House of Lords which means that a test of reasonableness now has to be applied before illegal immigrants are forced to return to their country and family situations must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Recently, we debated cuts in legal aid again, and this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just now. These cuts are hitting detained asylum seekers as well as vulnerable young people. They will inevitably mean more unrepresented appellants. Meanwhile, I understand that the role of the non-legal members of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal, in both the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, may be under threat from further cuts. These are experts who sit with immigration judges and they are essential to the process of hearing appeals against decisions to refuse entry or to deport. With the increasing volume of cases, it seems quite wrong to reduce the numbers dealing with them at this time. There are only 32 of them. There has already been public consultation on this decision. Now, I can only hope that the Minister will look favourably on the tribunals, even though he may not be able to make reference to them today.
Finally, turning to the subject of students, the Minister will remember my concern that the bona fide colleges were suffering considerably from the Government’s policies, rather more than the universities. Bogus students have been rightly targeted, but I am referring to the effect of previous legislation, as well as this Bill, on genuine students in our colleges and universities. All of us who want students taken out of immigration numbers—and I know that the Minister will make the OECD point again—have watched this country lose revenue today, but we will see the loss of revenue and our international standing tomorrow. At the same time, colleges and other institutions are being turned into agents of the Home Office, and now landlords are going to join them.
The Minister mentioned ensuring competitiveness, but he will have heard my noble friends Lord Bilimoria and Lord Hannay speak about the competition in Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Like my noble friend Lord Bilimoria, I am especially worried about the loss of Indian students. I wonder whether the Minister saw the Indian High Commissioner’s interview in The House magazine last week. He said that restricting students’ opportunities to work during and after their studies was especially counterproductive. I wonder whether the Home Office has talked to the high commission about this.
Students who study practical subjects such as catering or design technology—and there are many from the subcontinent who do—are now branded as illegal workers, although they have a very limited chance of getting work experience, which is essential to their courses and careers. They need to see how things are done in the high street. In view of the strength of feeling in this House, is it not high time that the Government confronted this issue once and for all?
I am a patron of the Haslar Visitors Group in Portsmouth and I have just received an invitation to its next AGM, which has the theme “How do we avoid becoming the nasty country?”. I sincerely hope that the Government, in their search for solutions, will remember that this country has had a deservedly good reputation for hospitality to strangers over many centuries, and we do not want to tarnish it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. The Bill has many valuable features but there are also, as has been exemplified in this debate, some very valid and genuine concerns. As has been said, the debate was ably and fairly set out by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
It is important to put the Bill in its context. This country has become more vibrant, more diverse, stronger and better because of immigration. That was exemplified recently by the 2012 Olympics. Looking at the Olympic ambassadors, our troops, our spectators and certainly our competitors, you could see that they were from many different races, religions, traditions and backgrounds.
I agree with the points made by many noble Lords about the importance of asylum. Over the years under different Governments we have been a haven for refugees and asylum seekers, from Uganda and recently from Syria, and we have also looked at special cases—for example, the Gurkhas. It is also important to say that this Bill is not the full picture. Quite rightly, it looks at how we control immigration but there are other important aspects. Just last Friday we dealt with a Bill—admittedly it is a Private Member’s Bill but it has had unanimous support from all quarters in the Commons and the Lords—making it easier for some troops to qualify successfully as immigrants in this country. That is the other important facet or the other side of the coin. I also look forward to the modern slavery Bill, when we will see provisions for tackling some of the abuses in relation to people who seek to settle in this country. That is another important part of the picture.
I look at this Bill in two senses: we have to ask whether it is potentially fair and potentially effective. Some parts of the Bill fulfil both criteria. On removal or deportation, if we can aim for a quicker, more streamlined but fair system—noble Lords have made the point about the need for speed—that will be good. Similarly, it will be good if we have a streamlined, fair and effective system for appeals. Also, provided that there is provision for the destruction of some of the materials in appropriate circumstances, the provisions on biometric information will bring our system into the 21st century. Other countries have biometric testing and I see no objection per se in that provided that it is properly controlled and fair. Tougher provisions on sham marriages and civil partnerships would, again, be welcomed. If they are sham and inappropriate marriages or civil partnerships, we need to act. I also welcome tougher powers against illegal or unfit immigration advisory bodies and organisations. These provisions are to be greeted with acclaim.
I have some concerns about the health service charge in relation to students—a point that has cropped up repeatedly. However, again, I think that a health service charge properly administered and at an appropriate low level is fair and reasonable. It is practised by other European countries. Of course, it is paid up-front; it is not paid when somebody goes to the doctor—it is certainly not paid to the doctor because they are exempt. I do not think that it is paid at the hospital door; I think that it is a provision that is made when somebody makes an application. Therefore, once paid, it should not act as a deterrent from going to a hospital. Certainly, we will need to look at that to make sure that it is fair. I have concerns in relation to international students, both in that area and more widely.
Something that has not been discussed at great length but, again, is important so that we can assess the effect of immigration and whether people are returning home is proper exit controls. That provision was widely welcomed in the Commons across all parties. It is something that we need to do, it is relatively easily done and it should not hold things up. Most people leave by plane, so we will get a full and proper picture if that check can be done at exit—something that has not been effectively done until now.
That brings me to two areas of the Bill which cause me concern and which I think will need proper scrutiny as it goes through Committee. The first relates to the services section of the legislation, if I can call it that, in relation to driving licences, bank accounts and particularly accommodation. There are some problems here regarding fairness and effectiveness. It may be unfair both on the person doing the checking and on the person being checked, and it may also be unfair to people who are not being checked and who are going to be hit as collateral damage. The DVLA and the banks have the capacity—they are large enough—to be able to create a small bureaucracy to deal with this, although I ask my noble friend to say in response, if he can, what documents are going to be looked at. I have concerns about this. If we do not have ID cards in this country—and this is not a plea to have them; there are great concerns about them—how can people demonstrate that they are nationals of the UK or that they have a right to be here? As has been said, many people do not have a passport so, short of that, what documents are going to be needed? I can see the argument that we do not want to encourage people who are here illegally to be able to set up a bank account or obtain a driving licence.
I have greater concerns in relation to landlords and landladies. Some of these will be people who have got a small house where they are letting out rooms. It is extremely unfair to put them in a position where they have to police the immigration service and check what these documents are. Will the Minister say how this is going to be dealt with? Short of ID cards—which I do not want—I cannot see how you can have an effective system in those circumstances.
The danger is—and this point has been made by other noble Lords—that there could be indirect and unintentional discrimination. The tenancy example is perhaps the most serious one. People will go for tenants who they think have a right to be here. Alternatively, some of the most vulnerable in our society who do not have passports but who are nationals will suffer collaterally as well. This area causes me concern. There is potential for indirect discrimination and I should like to probe further as to how this is going to work.
However, my greatest concern is something that has been touched on by other Members of your Lordships’ House. It relates to the deprivation of nationality, particularly where the person has no other nationality. If they have dual nationality then clearly it is not so serious, but if the deprivation of nationality leaves them stateless, then I have serious concerns both about fairness and efficacy. It seems neither fair not effective. If they are in this country there is nowhere we can legally deport them to if they are stateless. Britain has a proud history of fairness and I believe my country to be better than this proposal.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, but there is much to scrutinise as well. I look forward to doing so as the legislation proceeds. I trust we shall be able to improve this Bill.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the immigration debate was recently described as “rancid”, as politics has descended into what the article described as,
“the stinking gutter of xenophobia”.
The author was Ian Birrell, a former speechwriter to David Cameron. The stinking gutter of xenophobia diminishes us all, and that is the context in which this Bill has to be understood, as a number of noble Lords have already eloquently underlined. When publishing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that it was designed to
“create a really hostile environment for illegal migrants”.
The fear of organisations working in the field is that it will indeed create a hostile environment, but for migrants and minority ethnic groups more generally. The UN High Commissioners for Refugees has warned that it will lead to further stigmatisation of, and discrimination against, refugees and asylum seekers.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has likewise cautioned that a disqualification from renting or occupying private sector accommodation on grounds of immigration status will heighten the risk of wider, even if unintentional, racial discrimination in lettings. Moreover, it could give rise to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but who face genuine barriers to leaving. This potentially risks breaches of the right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I am not reassured by the Government’s response to the committee and I am even less reassured having received the Residential Landlords Association briefing, which argues that the proposal is unworkable and will have unintended, negative consequences. This is reinforced by having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who is such an expert in the area of housing. While I welcome the fact that there will be some form of piloting before national rollout, can the Minister explain how that will work and say what steps will be taken to monitor the impact from an equalities and human rights perspective?
Among other concerns raised in the JCHR’s legislative scrutiny report are the significant limitation of appeal rights, which we believe,
“is not compatible with the common law right of access to a court or tribunal in relation to unlawful immigration decisions, and the right to an effective remedy”.
This is particularly so in the light of the relatively high success rate for such appeals,
“due to the well-documented shortcomings in the quality of decision-making … the importance of appeals as a means of enforcing the children duty in s. 55 of the Borders, Citzenship and Immigration Act 2009; … and … the likely cumulative impact of proposed changes to legal aid and judicial review”.
I hope that the Minister was not implying that the Joint Committee has been peddling myths when he included that in his little list of myths in his speech. In the context of what is happening to judicial review, the Committee was also not satisfied with,
“the Government’s reliance on the continued availability of judicial review to challenge the Secretary of State’s certification that a human rights appeal can be heard out of country”.
Secondly, we expressed our unease about Clause 14, which is,
“a statutory provision which purports to tell courts and tribunals that ‘little weight’ should be given to a particular consideration”,
in any “judicial balancing exercise”, as is proposed with regard to Article 8 claims concerning the right to respect for private and family life. This appeared to us to be,
“a significant legislative trespass into the judicial function”.
Thirdly, we raised the possible implications of the Bill for the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. We welcomed the Government’s clarification that nothing in the Bill changes that duty but warned that it is not clear in practice how the Bill is to be read alongside it. I also welcome the clarification in the Government’s response to our report that the Section 55 duty will apply to children who do not come within the Bill’s definition of a qualifying child.
Nevertheless, I share the concern raised by the Refugee Children’s Consortium and BID that Clause 14 does not explicitly include the best interests of children in the list of public interest considerations to which courts and tribunals should have regard, even though it is accepted by the Government that courts and tribunals must treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration in line with Article 3 of the UNCRC. The consortium has warned that,
“the Bill will have significant detrimental consequences for children”.
That point was raised very eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
Fears have also been expressed about some of the Bill’s health provisions and the associated proposals for NHS charging outlined in the Department of Health consultation. While welcoming the retention of free access to GP and nurse appointments, the Refugee Children’s Consortium warns that any treatment needed as a result could now become chargeable. It believes that this,
“will serve to discourage refugee and migrant children and families from accessing healthcare services”,
with a very likely,
“detrimental impact on children's health, well-being and safety as well as on public health”.
Other organisations point to likely damaging consequences for HIV testing.
Doctors of the World raised particular concerns about children not receiving vital immunisations and the risk for their futures if their mothers do not receive any or timely antenatal care. The Royal College of Midwives and Maternity Action also express their fear that these proposed changes will deter some pregnant women from seeking and accessing maternity care. They point out that the negative impact on the health of these women and their babies could perversely lead to a need for more medical care at a greater cost.
I also want to express my concern about Clause 60. I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said about that. As ILPA warns, the removal of the,
“‘right to have rights’ … is a retrograde step indeed”.
I add that it is the more so because it would be retrospective. Liberty condemns it as an archaic punishment rendering the individual completely voiceless and vulnerable to human rights violations. I therefore agree with Sarah Teather MP that,
“making people stateless is simply wrong”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/14; col. 1079.]—
regardless of how many people are involved. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Kennedy what that can mean in practice.
I hope that in Committee we might be able to consider some of the issues raised by the JCHR’s inquiry into unaccompanied migrant children and young people and the Children’s Society’s parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, of which I was a member. Among the latter’s recommendations were reform of the asylum support system and permission to work for asylum seekers who do not receive a decision on their application within six months, a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Judd in his marvellous speech and by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. The inquiry expressed its shock at evidence it received of children left destitute and homeless, entirely without institutional support. The fear is that this Bill could lead to even more widespread destitution and homelessness among these children and others, as well as infringe important human rights.
The more unpopular the group, the greater the responsibility on your Lordships’ House to look dispassionately yet sympathetically at their needs and their rights. Many outside organisations which campaign tirelessly on behalf of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are now looking to us to speak up on their behalf and to amend the more damaging provisions in this Bill. I hope that we will not let them down.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to this very important debate in your Lordships’ House. We have heard some wonderful speeches and I feel privileged to take part. Successive Governments have sought to grapple with immigration legislation, increasingly in a hostile environment. We all rightly want a fair and just system to protect those who are genuine migrants or asylum seekers and to treat them in a humane way in accordance with the proud traditions which our society has established for many years: namely, traditions of tolerance, integrity and fairness.
Unfortunately, in the race to be seen to talk tough on immigration, the whole debate and language has become toxic and xenophobic. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is not in his place, reminded us that we live in a world in which we have responsibilities that we cannot duck. He talked about what is happening in the Middle East, in dysfunctional countries such as Syria, and about how poorer countries are rising to the challenge. He mentioned Turkey, a country to which I have ethnic links, which is currently looking after about 560,000 Syrians. It does not call them refugees; it calls them guests and it treats them as guests. It does not stigmatise them. Many thousands are being looked after in the homes of Turkish people in a very different way from here. We have our duty but we must remember that other countries are doing far more than us. Some of the language suggests that somehow everyone is coming to this country and we had better pull up that drawbridge or we are going to be swamped.
Those of us from immigrant families who arrived in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s, will remember the language and the discrimination endured by our parents and family. Many of those migrants came on the invitation of the Government of the time to rebuild and contribute to the UK’s post-war services, infrastructure and economy. Waves of migrants have continued to make an enormous contribution to this country. Instead of the debate on immigration being framed around establishing a fair and just immigration system and ensuring that the system is not abused, we see the debate being framed in a quite different way. Unfortunately in recent years it has been more about chasing negative and extreme headlines, as other noble Lords have said.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the shameful language used about Bulgarians and Romanians in the run-up to 1 January. Last week I asked an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House on the impact that that is having on the communities here. There is strong evidence that it is impacting on the children from those communities. They are living here, their parents are here and they are in our schools. They are being discriminated against. As ChildLine reported, there has been a 69% increase in children from those communities facing racism in schools. How must it feel to be a child these days from a Bulgarian or Romanian background? They have been talked about as if they are somehow inferior and not worthy of coming to this country, and not making a valuable contribution. I have an interest because my mother is 82 and her last two care workers were Bulgarian, as is the current one. They are fantastic people—hard-working, committed and cannot do enough. I am a bit biased when it comes to that sort of language.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hamwee and other noble Lords. I wrote this at the weekend and many of us are thinking very similarly when we say that the debate must be about showing leadership. Those of us in Parliament and in positions of power and influence must be more responsible in the language that we use. There has to be responsible leadership. We need to lead and not follow. It is not a race to the bottom.
We know that all political parties look at the polls very closely and nowadays immigration is being talked about. If you ask people what their top concern is—surprise, surprise, it is immigration. In years gone by I remember it was the NHS, education, crime or community safety; now, apparently, the majority of people in this country are worried about immigration. When you ask them how it personally affects them, the figures are rather different. That is the test we need to apply when people are afraid of immigration. The impact is not as great as is being dictated by sections of the media.
I have real concerns about the negative impact and effects on some of the checks mentioned earlier by noble Lords, and I want to highlight housing, which was set out eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I have been told that many landlords who will be asked to do the job of immigration officials may well bypass taking part in the bureaucratic checks—they might be too expensive or time-consuming, or the landlords may not want to risk fines. If someone looks or sounds like a person from an ethnic minority or a migrant of dubious background we could well end up with a situation of ethnic profiling that our long-standing equalities legislation was designed to end. This would be extremely damaging to race relations and community cohesion. We could have a situation where we go back to the days I mentioned earlier. When my parents came to this country they were confronted by signs saying, “No Blacks, no dogs, no Irish, no foreigners”—that sort of thing. It was legal then. We could start rolling back hard-fought-for equalities legislation if we go down that road and I am very worried about that.
I am also concerned about the inappropriate detention of vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly women—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, set out very clearly. Many of these women have been raped or trafficked or indeed are pregnant. Recent reports show alarming abuse by male guards. In 2012, 6,071 women sought refuge as asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. Almost 2,000 of them were held in detention centres and the bulk of these vulnerable women—some 85%—said they had either been raped or tortured. Many had severe mental health problems.
According to the UK Border Agency, its policy where there is evidence of this type of abuse is that an individual should be detained only in exceptional circumstances—but in far too many cases detention is indefinite and is taking place and is unacceptable. Some 40% of women are being held for more than a month—and for some people it is up to a year—in degrading conditions. Does the Minister expect that the Bill will go some way to addressing that? How will the Bill tackle human trafficking victims? How will it tackle the exploitation of migrant workers by gangs, which we hear is taking place far too frequently?
I welcome proposals to tackle the bogus so-called immigration advice centres. Some of these are pop-up advice centres, and I have certainly seen them in my part of London over the years. They prey on vulnerable asylum seekers, charging large sums of money for often unhelpful advice that prejudices their cases. Regulation of those bodies is important, and I welcome that.
All too often, the rhetoric around immigration becomes inflated with negative language about criminals, bogus asylum seekers, health tourists, scroungers and so forth, but little is made of the enormous contributions made to the United Kingdom by migration over the decades. There have been contributions to the health service, as has been mentioned already, the economy and social and cultural aspects—the very fabric of the society that we now enjoy. Not all are or need to be the brightest and the best, but although we welcome them, we should also look at our social care sector, which I touched on earlier. We have an ageing population and the vast majority of care workers working in challenging jobs in care homes and in homes are migrant workers. They are working for the minimum wage doing thankless jobs in conditions that many people from the host community do not want to do. That has been the situation over many decades. Migrants come over here and do the jobs that other people do not want to do.
We should value the work that they are doing in the NHS and the care sector. They work in their thousands as care workers and cleaners in the NHS, and without their labour the social care services would undoubtedly collapse. Fairness, which befits our country—a country of great tolerance and a role model around the world—is vital. The Bill, as others have said, needs proper scrutiny and I hope that it will get it.
My real worry is that while we all want a fair and proportionate enforcement of immigration control, and it is important to have confidence in the system, a policy of forced destitution through the combined effect of homelessness and perhaps lack of healthcare, as we have already heard, as a tool of immigration control for those who may already be highly vulnerable and facing exploitation, has obvious and grave ethical implications for our society, and I hope that we will be vigilant before we go down that route.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I understand the Government’s wish to reduce net immigration. But they surely need to increase the number of overseas students, particularly outside London, where the pressures are less. The background to the Bill, however, is that after five years of problems, the UK borders authority was abolished in March 2013, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service have both closed and the number of reputable law firms willing to take on immigration and asylum cases has been sharply reduced. Legal aid has been savagely cut and may be cut still further, and fees for documentation are steadily rising while waivers and refunds are hard to obtain. Meanwhile, the director-general of the UK visa and immigration section told the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place that she did not think the organisation was ever going to be fixed.
That situation makes it ever more important that decisions in asylum cases and other immigration matters are got right in the first place. That will save endless trouble later with appeals, judicial reviews and so forth. Will the Government devote their energy to this? Will they ensure that high-quality interpreters are available when needed? Will they see that women are interviewed by women, unless this is against the wishes of the person? Will they always have accurate, up-to-date country information? I and many other noble Lords have been asking these kinds of questions for years without, I am sorry to say, much result.
I now come to children’s issues and follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. The Refugee Children’s Consortium, a grouping of more than 40 NGOs which work daily with such children and their parents, estimates that there are 120,000 undocumented children in Britain—and the figure could easily be higher. That is, they have no agreed status and may be subject to deportation. The total is perhaps not surprising, given the backlog of over 30,000 asylum cases, some long outstanding. In addition, there are the children of overstayers and the steady trickle of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
I regret that this Bill will increase the risk of destitution and homelessness for such children and their families. Children and young people will be more at risk of exploitation and abuse. Fears of deportation and new restrictions on access to the National Health Service are likely to spread infectious diseases and increase maternal and infant deaths—as was clearly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to Doctors of the World, whose practitioners have had a clinic in Bethnal Green for years. They have reported that many migrants are destitute, not registered with surgeries, fearful of arrest and that the children are not getting the immunisations they deserve. Will the Government consult consortium members, for example the Catholic Social Action Network, the Cardinal Hume Centre, the Salvation Army and the Baobab Centre in north London? Will they ensure that the Department of Health and all its local outposts in the health service know of the undertaking given by the former Minister, Mr Harper, on 12 November at col. 310 of Commons Hansard? It concerns both public health and access to treatment.
The Government must surely know their duties under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly Article 2. They must not discriminate against children on grounds of race, nationality or parents’ status. This means that all children are equal in the sight of the law and their best interests must prevail. This is upheld by case law: for example, the judgment in ZH (Tanzania). Will the Minister say how the Secretary of State’s duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 will be carried out once this Bill becomes law? She has to safeguard and promote the welfare of children with respect to immigration functions.
I ask also what is being done about appointing guardians for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. This has been debated for a long time. Will legal aid be preserved for unaccompanied children and minors where trafficking is alleged or suspected? I ask the Government to pay particular attention to the recent report from Bail for Immigration Detainees, Fractured Childhoods. It recommends that,
“families should not be separated by immigration detention”,
and that where it is absolutely necessary, detention should be time-limited—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked—and that it should be subject to judicial oversight.
In particular, Immigration Rules 398 and 399 should be revised to reflect legal requirements to consider the child’s best interests. There are many other NGOs longing to make their expertise available. They include Detention Action, the Residential Landlords’ Association, the Royal College of Midwives and Still Human, Still Here, a campaign for destitute refused asylum applicants.
I congratulate the Government on proposing that the Bill be considered by a Committee of the whole House. That will at least allow some issues to be dealt with by votes early on. We know that airline staff and employers have for some years been pressed into service as unofficial immigration officials. I deeply regret that landlords, banks, carriers and port staff, registrars and GPs will all have extra burdens imposed on them. Here, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. We shall have also to discuss the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, on the right to privacy and family life.
For those reasons, and for the well-being of innocent children, the Bill should be amended before it leaves this House. I beg Her Majesty’s Government not to let their mind be poisoned by the rantings of some tabloid newspapers. I have given notice of various questions and look forward to helpful answers. I conclude by agreeing most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when he said that what we need is a policy that will provide fairness and humanity, especially for children and families, in our immigration system.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I speak in this important debate to focus on some of the issues concerning children and universities. I declare an interest as the vice-president of Barnardo’s and as the chancellor of the University of Exeter, where we continue to encourage high-quality applications for science and engineering programmes from a diversity of countries, in line with supporting the UK’s economic growth in that strategically important area. Support is needed, and the UK needs to send out positive messages in this global competitive market. Therefore, I wish not just to express the concerns of Exeter University but to echo concerns shared by many universities throughout the country, on whom the proposals will have the most detrimental effect in terms of international student intakes and regional economic developments.
The international student sector will be one of the groups most affected by the Bill, as it makes up 75% of those who are already subject to visa controls and are most heavily regulated and monitored. However, this group makes the most significant contribution to the UK economy. Making the process harder for them would deter many potential students from choosing the UK as a place to study. I worry that by implementing these proposals, UK education is likely to go backwards on its long established tradition of international cultural integration, competitiveness and co-operation.
In Exeter, as in many other UK cities, international students and staff make a significant contribution to the local economy. As a university and as a city, we wish to encourage international students to come to Exeter. Our major concern is that a number of clauses in the Bill—for example, those on the introduction of NHS charges, the requirements for landlords to check immigration permission before letting their properties, and the removal of appeal rights for in-country visa applicants—give the message that the UK is a difficult place to which to come to study.
Exeter’s international teaching staff, who are vital to developing the international reputation of the university, already contribute tax and national insurance from their salaries. Under these new proposals, they will now also have to pay an up-front levy to use NHS services. Many come to the UK with their families, which will make this a significant cost and may discourage them from working here. This would be our loss. I ask my noble friend the Minister: has this been taken into consideration?
Our university invests a lot of resources into ensuring that all international students have valid immigration permission. We perform this role effectively and diligently. I ask my noble friend whether he believes that landlords, with no training, will be able to do the same. There is a risk that many landlords will cease to let their properties to international students, placing these students at a disadvantage against their UK counterparts and increasing feelings of marginalisation.
The Government must make sure that the Immigration Rules deter fraudsters, criminals and those who wish our nation harm, but the Government must also show that we welcome genuine candidates. It is vital that this positive message be sent out across the world.
I now turn to children and young people. Many of the proposed policies will indirectly affect children, such as those in detention centres and those without refugee status. I hope that any legislation the Government are considering involving immigration detention for children will make sure that the well-being of children is a priority and will include safeguards to ensure that pre-departure accommodation, such as Cedars, where support is given by Barnardo’s, is used as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, in line with international standards of human rights. Children deserve this.
I also draw attention to the concerns of charities such as Kids Company, which deals with many serious problems involving children and young people who are impacted by their parents’ unresolved immigration issues. Some of these children were trafficked, and at 18 their lives come to a complete standstill. They do not have the legal papers to get employment or be able to access further education or take up university places offered to them to help them better their lives and make a positive contribution to Britain. Kids Company has said:
“We have to support a number of young people by paying for their food and accommodation because they are not eligible for housing benefit or subsistence, and because they cannot access benefits or get employment due to their unresolved status”.
Many of the young people are being sexually abused by men who allow them to stay in their homes in return for sexual contact. They are very traumatised, undernourished, humiliated and excluded.
Another significant problem is the abuse by a few unscrupulous solicitors who, knowing these young people are vulnerable, take their money and do not process their legal papers appropriately. These victims cannot hold the solicitors accountable because they do not have the know-how, and they are not legally defined here in the UK. Consequently, Kids Company has to pay the fee required by the Home Office to legitimise these unfortunate young people’s legal status as refugees.
The Government’s strategy is flawed in this area and needs to be addressed, as the numbers who find themselves in this position are growing. Many of these non-status individuals resort to crime and prostitution to survive, not to mention the psychological damage that they suffer. Kids Company has stated that this group now forms its biggest and most high-risk client group. They are arriving at its doorsteps daily through word of mouth. It describes the scale and severity of this problem as catastrophic; a problem that requires an international refugee protection programme, which I hope that the Government will consider.
These are just some of my main concerns on this important Bill. Many noble Lords have expressed some of the views which I, too, feel. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I truly hope that he takes a holistic view, with a clear head and moral conscience, and with our great country’s interest and reputation close to heart.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the economic and human rights issues raised by this important Bill have been effectively examined by noble Lords today. However, I and others well understand the Government’s need to find ways to reduce the impact of illegal migrants upon our hard-pressed health services and upon the British taxpayer. I also welcome the Government’s adjustments to the Bill following representations made over recent months. Particularly welcome are the exemptions for asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking.
Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the importance of perception and the need to avoid sending a message to the world that Britain is closed for business. I also want to refer to the powerful arguments against the creation of stateless persons; I simply endorse those contributions. I will touch only briefly on the provisions for private landlords and the NHS charging issue raised in Part 3. My aim is to raise a number of questions in the hope that the Minister can clarify the points raised before Committee, so that we might cut down some amendments that would be unnecessary in the debate at that point.
We need to understand the relationship between the existing system within the NHS to charge non-EU visitors to the UK for certain services and the combination of the proposed surcharge, payable before entry to Britain, with the plan to continue charging non-EU migrants for expensive health interventions. It seems that the Department of Health has been unable to assess fully the extent of the problem which these new provisions are designed to rectify. I recognise that a surcharge paid before entry to Britain is greatly preferable to charging people at the time of health treatment. If the surcharge were limited to short-term visitors and were the only charge, I would be inclined to support it. However, we know that the surcharge will apply much more widely than current provisions for visitors, and that migrants will continue to be charged as well for expensive treatments.
It is important to know what the threshold is for those charges for expensive treatments. If the threshold is in fact low, we could end up with a health surcharge and extensive charging for individual treatments. This would have equity implications for migrants and a significant cost implication for the NHS in administering the charging system. Most importantly, it would continue the unfortunate introduction of questions about affordability just when the person is going in for treatment. Personally, I am rather hostile to the very idea of introducing financial issues of affordability at the time of treatment, which is why I rather favour the surcharge idea. I hope that the Minister can clarify to what extent these charges will exist within the health setting.
A second question is whether charging longer-term migrants who are in employment and paying taxes and national insurance is regarded as reasonable by the Government. It would be helpful to know their rationale for this proposal. Have they undertaken an impact assessment of it on the willingness of overseas employees to come to this country and take up jobs here?
A related issue concerns British citizens who work overseas for some years and then return to this country many years later to take up employment here. It had not occurred to me that this Bill could conceivably affect them, but others have raised the question and it would be good to have the Minister’s reassurance that British citizens in this situation will not be affected.
In relation to primary care, can the Minister clarify whether access for migrants to initial GP and nurse consultations will include the prescriptions that would arise from many of these consultations, or will the prescriptions be charged in full to patients? The same question applies to community care. If a migrant with a mental health problem cannot access community care because they cannot afford it at the primary care level, have the Government assessed the risk of these provisions increasing the costs of secondary services that would, I believe, be provided free of charge in emergencies to migrants? They should be, but there is undoubtedly a relationship between providing good services in primary care and so reducing the impact on secondary care costs.
I put on record my strong support for my noble friends Lord Hannay and Lord Bilimoria and others who argue that foreign students should be exempt from the Bill. As others have said, higher education is an important export industry for this country. Yet foreign student numbers are falling fast, as others have pointed out. The Government plan to exempt halls of residence: if there is a rationale for that, then surely there is a rationale for exempting all student lodgings, for example. It seems that the Government are shooting themselves in the foot on that one.
On the more general issue of plans to use landlords as unpaid immigration officers, I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Best that landlords are likely to avoid by a very wide berth the possible hassle and fee, or fine, involved in unwittingly failing to spot an illegal migrant. This proposal could have a serious impact on the availability of private rented accommodation to all but the most obviously British of potential tenants.
The Government’s briefing indicates that the checks will be straightforward and quick for law-abiding landlords and tenants to comply with. Can the Minister clarify what is meant by “straightforward”? For example, if the landlord asked to see the prospective tenant’s passport, with a visa no doubt stamped inside, would that be sufficient to avoid future questions and investigations involving the landlord concerned? I hope that it would be.
The Minister referred to plans to protect vulnerable people. This is another area where I have to say that I am not convinced. Government briefing refers to “much simpler documentary requirements” for homeless and vulnerable people. The problem will surely be the absence of any documents in the possession of homeless people and of women fleeing domestic violence. I cannot imagine them having any bits of paper in their pocket in that situation.
Here we are assured that an e-mail Home Office service will provide the necessary information for some cases: if this has not been done within 48 hours the landlord can proceed and rent the property. For those with no documentary evidence we are told that there will be another option to obtain confirmation from the Home Office that the prospective tenant can rent a property, but no time limit is given for that process. Can the Minister explain the difference, again before Committee, because it really does not seem helpful? Some clarification at this early point could save the time of the House in Committee and I look forward to receiving the Minister’s information.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the introduction to the recent BIS publication International Education: Global Growth and Prosperity says:
“There are few sectors of the UK economy with the capacity to grow and generate export earnings as impressive as education … Overseas students who come to Britain to study make a huge contribution to our economy”.
As we have heard, BIS estimates that in 2011-12 overseas students in higher education in the UK paid £10.2 billion in tuition fees and living expenses. It says that they boost the local economy where they study, as well as enhancing our cultural life and broadening the educational experience of the UK students that they study alongside. Bravo to that.
The conclusion of the BIS report is that it is realistic for numbers of international students in higher education to grow by 15% to 20% over the next five years. However, the report warns that for this to happen,
“we must show that the UK values international students, will provide a warm welcome and support while they are here and will keep in touch after they go home”.
That all sounds pretty good. It is a pity that the reality is somewhat different. Even the report admits that there are some problems. It says, somewhat euphemistically at this point:
“There remain some misunderstandings about visa rules and post study opportunities to work. We must signal clearly that there is no cap on the number of students who can come to study in the UK and no intention to introduce one. Nor is there any cap on the number of former students who can stay on to work as long as they have a graduate job”.
It is one thing to say that we are open to international students but quite another to take responsibility for the service that students are receiving—one for which they are going to have to pay an even higher premium price.
As I say, there are a number of areas where the Bill needs close scrutiny. Clause 11 restricts appeal rights to cases involving a human rights, asylum or humanitarian protection claim. International students lost their right of appeal for initial entry clearance by means of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, but these new provisions will remove the remaining rights to appeal against a refusal of leave to remain. Applicants will instead be able to request an administrative review. Universities UK has suggested that the Government should retain appeal rights for applications for Tier 4 leave to remain and PhD-level jobs. Does the Minister agree that this proposal has some considerable merit?
Other noble Lords have already spoken about Clause 15 on residential tenancies. It is clear that international students already face difficulties in securing accommodation and are often made to pay large fees and advance rent payments. The Bill may result in landlords or agents refusing to even consider international students as tenants, or charging additional fees to cover the extra administration costs. In the student sector, tenancies are entered into often months in advance of the actual tenancy start date but that is something that international students may not be able to do, particularly if they have to prove their immigration status so far in advance.
While, as we have heard, the Explanatory Notes suggest that some student accommodation will be exempt—we will have to see the detail of that—there is concern that these measures will discourage private landlords from letting accommodation to international students and to university staff, particularly at peak times when they are under pressure to make decisions quickly. Given that many international students are young and living away from home for the first time, does the Minister not agree that this clause could cause considerable anxiety and add to the perception that the UK is unwelcoming?
Several noble Lords have expressed concern about Clause 33 on NHS charges and we, too, have some concerns about their introduction. As several noble Lords have said, there are concerns about public health. Universal primary care allows potentially serious health problems to be identified early, when they are preventable or easily and cheaply treated. This applies equally to long-term conditions as well as to infectious diseases. On an individual level, the proposals will make another change: international students already make a significant contribution to the UK economy, bringing in, as we have heard, more than £10 billion a year, while international academic staff, critical to our position as a world-leading university sector, pay taxes and national insurance while they are here. Why are they being asked to pay more? To add more trouble, the charge will have to be paid up front for the full duration of the visa.
Taken as a whole, the requirements for students who wish to study in the UK are in many cases more stringent than in competitor countries, particularly in relation to language requirements, academic progression, limits on study time, the ability to bring in dependants and police registration. Introducing a surcharge for access to the NHS will, ironically, remove one area of relative advantage that the UK can currently offer. In combination, these measures may create the impression that it is now harder to secure a visa to study in the UK than anywhere else in the world. It will of course add significant up-front costs that will make us even more different from our competitors.
It is difficult to see how the aspirations of international education, global growth and prosperity can ever be realised if the Bill is not improved while it is in this House.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, the fact that I am not addressing the wider implications in this Bill regarding students, detention caps and the positive contribution immigration makes does not mean that I do not have interest or concern in these important areas. I align myself with comments by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Dholakia and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.
As many noble Lords have stated, it is widely acknowledged there are significant delays and inefficiencies in the administration of immigration law, and this Bill will need to have greater clarity if it is not to add to this complexity. As the former Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales, I know the importance of having in place effective and efficient systems for casework and of ensuring good quality decision-making. Like other noble Lords, I note with some disappointment that the latest statistics at the Home Office reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 50% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. This is a high margin of error in casework. Yet Part 2 seeks to erode independent oversight in appeal rights making them difficult to access and curtailing judicial discretion. On present information on the quality of casework, it does not seem fair or just. Can the Minister reassure the House that he will ensure that the current quality of casework will be improved before reducing the opportunities for people to challenge decisions as the current standards in casework are a great concern? As my noble friend Lord Teverson said, it is an issue for competent management.
Clauses 33 and 34 in Part 3 could also potentially create new layers of bureaucracy for the NHS, as well as having some serious implications for race relations in the country. This may have unintended consequences. The clauses as they stand may require individuals to prove their identity before accessing services. In practice, this will invariably include individuals who are British citizens. As the noble Lord said, this may create unnecessary mistrust and suspicion. I would be grateful if the Minister can address these concerns to ensure that the myth does not become a reality.
As someone who has worked in the NHS for many years, I understand why NHS staff are not best placed to check the immigration status of their patients or to check that any surcharge payment was paid when a visa was first granted. Indeed, immigration status changes constantly, and it will be difficult to ensure all patients’ information is kept updated or to make sure that healthcare systems are equipped to understand immigration issues. Nurses’ and clinicians’ duty of care is to their patient and should be entirely focused on assessing and treating their clinical needs.
What about the healthcare and treatment of the children of individuals who have not paid the surcharge who become ill? Can the Minister give some reassurance that children will always receive free healthcare whatever the immigration status of their parents, as is their right under law? Like the Royal Collage of Nursing, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others, I believe that unless there is clear evidence that non-EU migrants are placing a significant burden on the NHS, the main focus should be on improving the current arrangements for chargeable patients. I pose the question: why is this not working now and, indeed, will this Bill improve it? If evidence shows the current system is not working effectively, then steps should be taken to rectify this, rather than applying a blanket approach to charging longer term migrants, who—and I agree entirely with the Royal College of Nursing—if in employment, will already be contributing to the NHS through taxes and national insurance. This is neither fair not equitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. However, I welcome the Government’s decision to maintain free access to GP consultations, and maintain the current exemptions to charging, and in future to the surcharge, and to continue to include asylum seekers, refugees and victims of trafficking. But charging for healthcare in Clause 33 and redefining who counts as an ordinary resident—Clause 34—could increase the number of vulnerable people living in the UK. Even though infectious illnesses will be treated for free, having a two-tiered system will create confusion, and could delay and discourage people seeking the most appropriate help or having no help at all. This clearly has implications regarding public health and may end up costing the NHS more, particularly as the surcharge paid by migrants may not find its way into the NHS purse.
The Terrence Higgins Trust states that the current proposals will also have a negative impact on the Government’s efforts to, “reduce attendance and admissions to A&E, reduce undiagnosed HIV, and reduce late diagnosis of HIV”, and “improve long-term health and wellbeing of the population”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues, as I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would prefer answers at this stage rather than having them debated in Committee. I am sure the Government would not wish to create a bigger problem than the one it is currently claimed exists in the NHS, and hope that they move to a more research and evidence-based approach to immigration.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, listening to this debate this afternoon and this evening, I have had a real sense of déjà vu, because the question of international students has been raised in the last two years, and the call for rational debate on immigration was first made by the Runnymede Trust when I was a director in 1982. But it seems that we never make much progress. At this stage I will inevitably be repeating what has already been said, for which I make no apology, because the strength of feeling is so strong it is worth repeating some of the points that have already been made.
This Bill seeks to create a hostile environment for irregular migrants. In so doing, I am afraid it will create a hostile environment for migrants seeking to enter or remain in the UK through legal channels. It will have a negative impact on international students, on public health generally, as we have heard, and put landlords in an invidious position. I fear the hostile environment it seeks to create for irregular migrants will be hostile to all of us. Proposals such as: administrative removal; extending immigration officers’ powers to use reasonable force by allowing them to do so in the exercise of all powers under any Immigration Act; indefinite retention of biometric information without justification and sufficient safeguards; removal of rights of appeal on any grounds other than asylum and human rights; denying any independent review to anyone else who makes an immigration application; and the introduction of landlord checks and new health charges for temporary migrants, raise not only practical questions but also questions of liberty and justice, principles on which we pride ourselves.
It is regrettable that in the other place a great deal of attention was paid to migration from Europe, but the most worrying aspects of the Bill were not properly scrutinised. It is very much to be hoped that this House will give sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill and its impact on migrants and society in general. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the question of leadership, because it is leadership that is required if we want a proper, rational and calm debate. I hope that this House will have a cool look at some of these provisions to make sure that they do not erode liberties and justice, and do not have a negative practical impact on some of the groups mentioned.
In my capacity as the president of UK Council for International Student Affairs, I highlight the impact that proposals such as the abolition of appeal rights and their replacement with a system of administrative reviews; the requirement for all landlords to undertake immigration checks; and the introduction of a health levy are likely to have on international students. I shall concentrate on some of the practical aspects.
As we know, international students and their dependants often need to appeal against decisions by the Home Office to refuse applications for visa extensions when completing their degrees or moving to higher-level courses, for a wide variety of reasons. It is now officially accepted that nearly 50% of appeals are upheld because the decisions were unsound in the first place due to technical errors, which does not inspire much confidence that the administrative reviews will work. The Government’s claim that administrative reviews have been successfully introduced for entry clearance decisions overseas does not hold. They point to the small number of reviews that result in decisions being overturned, but evidence from members of UKCISA tells a different story. Given the time required for these reviews and when the students have so little time, very few risk going through the process, preferring to submit a repeat application at an additional cost. Furthermore, attempts to limit Article 8 will have an adverse impact on students as they will not be able to rely on this in future applications, or challenges to refusals or removal action.
We know of no evidence of tier 4 students abusing the appeals system, but there is extensive evidence of errors by the Home Office staff. The danger is that similar officials would conduct administrative reviews and could come to similarly erroneous decisions. Removal of appeal rights is not only unjust but ineffective; natural justice demands that that this should be preserved for all, and not just for students.
The proposal for immigration checks by landlords is fundamentally flawed. Let us look at the facts. There is no evidence that international students present any difficulty in this area. International tier 4 students have their immigration status checked by the sponsoring educational institution as part of their compliance procedures, so why duplicate? We have seen that even the now former Minister for Immigration had difficulty verifying the immigration status of his cleaner. Even employers with professional HR departments have very considerable difficulty assessing immigration status and the vast variety of schemes and immigration stamps that exist; it is very easy to make mistakes. It is, therefore, difficult to see how landlords will be able to make appropriate judgments. The majority will play safe and consequently those of different colour, accent or origin will suffer. Where is the justice in that?
Then there are concerns about the availability of documents when visa extensions are being processed for those continuing to higher education courses, just when the same paperwork may be required for new accommodation. The requirement essentially to have a visa before renting accommodation, a process which is often done online, will make it difficult if not impossible for international students to arrange accommodation securely in advance of arrival. I know that there is now an exemption in the Bill for university-managed accommodation, but this does not address the potential problems as the vast majority of students are in privately rented accommodation. This proposal should be withdrawn altogether or at least all students should be exempted.
I turn to the health service levy. The principle of introducing any sort of health service charge for international students is unnecessary and unjustified. International students already pay the full cost of their education and all their living expenses, amounting to total earnings of £13.6 billion annually for the economy. They support local economies, paying VAT and tax on part-time earnings. They are, therefore, making a major financial contribution to the UK. There is no evidence to show extensive abuse of the NHS or health tourism.
As the levy, if imposed, will be paid with the visa application, it will be seen as an increase in the visa fee—yet another disincentive. The Government argue that other countries do this, but this does not take into account the fact that other countries have taken positive steps to attract international students. In our case, it is the cumulative effect of our policy towards international students—biometrics, entry clearance, institutional immigration checks and police registration—that acts as a major disincentive.
Consequences are evident. The Russell Group universities say that in 2010-11 new intakes of postgraduate students from India at Russell Group universities dropped by 21%, with a further 18% drop anticipated in 2012-13. They say that even the growth rate in new students from China has now started to taper off. By contrast, Indian postgraduate student numbers to the US increased by 40% in 2013. Visas granted to Indian students across all levels in Australia rose by 22% in the year following the introduction of a more open immigration policy. Visas granted to Indian students in Canada rose by 8%.
We all know that after many years of growth, 2012-13 saw the first reduction since records began in the number of non-EU higher education students and, for the second year running, a reduction of 25% in students from India and 19% for students from Pakistan. In April 2012, India’s Commerce and Industry Minister, the honourable Anand Sharma, reminded UK Ministers that Indian IT companies were considering relocating from the UK as a result of difficulties in the UK immigration system. He also emphasised wider issues such as visas for business trips and restrictions affecting Indian students hoping to study in the UK. That was two years ago.
The Government, in their report, International Education Strategy—Global Growth and Prosperity, said that their approach was a warm welcome for international students, and explained that there was no cap on the number of international students who could come to the UK, and that they would support students when things go wrong in their home. However, the proposals in the Bill run contrary to the intentions of this strategy. Because students are part of the overall government target to reduce migration, they are getting caught in these measures.
On a number of occasions, as my noble friend Lord Hannay said, EU Sub-Committee F, of which I am a member, has said that international students should be removed from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. We have argued that nothing short of this will enable the UK to remain competitive in attracting international students. The IPPR report published in December 2013 argued that the Home Office’s net migration target had created a perverse incentive for the Government to reduce the number of international students officially counted as migrants in order to achieve an overall reduction in migrant numbers. They said that this was harming the UK economy. This is an opportunity to change the policy, remove international students from this target and stop them getting caught in these proposals. I very much hope that the Government will pay heed to these issues and that I will not have a sense of déjà vu 10 years on.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is about time that this country had a sensible, calm and balanced approach to discussing immigration and asylum. We seem over recent years to have indulged in hysteria, false facts and scaremongering. That does not help us as a country to make sensible decisions.
Perhaps I may share a little experience and give this issue a lighter touch. Recently, I was in a café-restaurant with some friends and, from her accent, the waitress was clearly not British—she was from somewhere in eastern Europe. As I usually do, I asked, just out of interest, “Where are you from?”. She said that she was from the Czech Republic. We asked, “What are you doing here? Are you here to work, study or what?”. “No”, she said, “I am here to have fun. That’s all. When I have had fun, I am going back to the Czech Republic”. I thought that that just about put it in the right perspective, when compared with all the hysteria about these people coming here. She just wanted to have fun because she saw London as a place where she could do so, perhaps more fun than in her own country.
On the whole, however, this debate does not have much fun to it. It is gloomy and the climate of opinion on migration and migrants has been generally hostile. There are, of course, problems. None of us believes in sham marriages. We should deal with illegal immigration, provided there is evidence, not just accusations. As my noble friend said, we have to have a basis for any policy so we know what we are doing and why we are doing it. We know that immigration has been of overall benefit to this country. The difficulty is the imbalance between the contribution made by immigration to Britain and the economy, compared with the local areas where people settle and where there may be more pressure on services. Although the country as a whole benefits, the areas where migrants—or some of them—tend to settle need a bit more help with housing, health, education and transport. If there was no such imbalance, the whole thing could be managed better. A lot of the skill in immigration policy is in dealing with this imbalance so that we go on benefiting, as a country, but local communities are given the help to which they are entitled, given that they are contributing to benefits for the whole country. That should be the basis of a policy followed by any British Government.
I turn to some details of the Bill. I am concerned that some policies may be intensive in staff time at the Home Office and elsewhere and there may well be problems with the adequacy of resources. Other noble Lords have mentioned rights of appeal. There must be a concern that cuts in legal aid will make these less effective or meaningful. The Joint Committee on Human Rights talked, in its report, about constraints to the right of a tribunal to consider a new matter. That constraint has been applied, in Clause 11, so that the Secretary of State decides whether any new matter can be dealt with by a tribunal. Why can the tribunals not decide themselves what is sensible in relation to cases before them? The Bill will also increase the potential for judicial reviews, some of which may have to take place on behalf of people who are no longer in the country. That is virtually impossible to do. In any case, the Government are increasing the likelihood of judicial reviews at a time when the Lord Chancellor has protested that there are already too many.
Many references have been made to difficulties with Clause 15 and later clauses dealing with residential tenancies. It is very unpleasant for individuals to have to check on others and say: “Produce the evidence so I can let my flat to you”. This is neither the topic of the Bill nor a popular cause, but I sometimes wonder—without advocating them—whether ID cards might have dealt with a lot of these things painlessly, fairly and sensibly. However, the country has moved away from that, although ID cards would have helped on this and a number of other things too. Anybody coming to the country could have been given a temporary ID card to cover them while the basis of their stay was being resolved. There is a difficulty with residential tenancies and I fear that some of the policies might lead to more homelessness, especially for children.
In his very nice opening speech, the Minister made the Bill seem much blander and nicer than it actually is. This is a skill on his part but does not help us very much. He said it was the Government’s aim not to have children in detention. I cannot remember what the position is at the moment. Some of us have campaigned for years, both under the previous Government and this one, arguing that children should not be detained under immigration powers. What is the position and, if it continues, when will it be phased out?
I turn to the subject of health. As has already been mentioned, the prospect of charging for maternity care is alien to the best principles of decent healthcare. It would, surely, be right to exempt all pregnant women and children from charges. Starting antenatal care after 20 weeks is a risk factor, as is not attending antenatal appointments and screening. There is also a risk to the health of the child and an increased chance of infant mortality. Should not all pregnant women and new mothers have a GP and other primary care services for free, including access to prescriptions and whatever else is necessary? I think that it would be right to exempt from charges asylum seekers, refugees, children in local authority care and victims of trafficking. What will the position be as regards refused asylum seekers and undocumented migrants? Will they face NHS charges, including for primary care and A&E treatment?
I turn to the question of victims of trafficking. Admittedly, if they have been recognised as victims of trafficking, they may be helped by the Bill, but of course we know that quite a number of such victims are afraid to present themselves lest they be treated as illegal immigrants. I have heard this from NGOs and others in all parts of the country. There is a real concern about this. If we are to deal with victims of trafficking, we must not allow the authorities or the powers-that-be to make them criminals. They should be seen as victims and not as criminals. Therefore, the registration system for assessing eligibility for NHS treatment must not be linked to the Home Office in such a way that accessing treatment can be used as a means of immigration enforcement. The danger is that that will happen.
We know that it is hard for a homeless person to register with a GP. The result is that homeless people attend A&E six times more often than the general population and they stay in hospital for three times as long. This is at a time when everybody is trying to find ways of reducing pressure on A&E departments, yet the consequence will be to increase it.
Of course, there are problems with charging systems. The chair of the BMA council regarded the proposed charges as “impractical, uneconomic and inefficient”. I understand that the Department of Health did a piece of qualitative research among health professionals last year, and there is a concern that,
“the cost of setting up a new complex infrastructure may outweigh any increase in income”.
If that is not enough, the headline on page 24 of today’s Evening Standard—I am not sure how authoritative this is—reads: “GPs turning away refugees to avoid ‘staggering’ task of registering them”. That bears out the point that I have just made.
I turn briefly to the question of work. I think that it would be right to allow asylum seekers to work if an initial decision in their case was not made within six months. It seems to me that letting people hang on unemployed, unable to work and in very poor circumstances is not sensible either for them or for the country. My suggestion is limited to those whose cases are not decided initially within six months. If they worked, there would be a lesser burden on taxpayers and a route out of poverty for asylum seekers. I understand that at the moment 5,500 asylum seekers have been waiting for more than six months for an initial decision and are still unable to work. It would also avoid the negative consequences of prolonged economic exclusion and forced inactivity. Those would all be bonuses. Surely it would be more sensible to let asylum seekers work in the circumstances that I have described.
Before I finish, I want to say a word about the deprivation of citizenship. I understand that this should be strictly limited to instances where a person can immediately gain another nationality, but, as I understand it, nothing in the Bill would prevent deprivation of citizenship taking place. Sometimes, citizenship can be taken from a person while that person is not in the country. There have been instances of that—not many but a few. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong if we took away citizenship from an individual, who would be left high and dry and effectively stateless.
The way that we deal with vulnerable people, immigrants and asylum seekers is a test of what sort of country we are. It is a test of our commitment to human rights and it is how we are judged on the international stage.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, this Bill is not one that a majority Liberal Democrat Government would have brought forward. We have worked in coalition to improve this Bill and it is clear from what noble Lords have said that more needs to be done.
It is important that this Bill should be put into context. What is it trying to achieve? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that most reasonable people do not believe that there is a danger of this country being overwhelmed by a tsunami of immigrants. We do, however, have to be very careful about the way in which we use statistics in this area. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts talked about population growth. Can the Minister confirm that, in 2012-13, only 20% of the population growth in the UK was due to immigration?
My noble friend Lady Hamwee also suggested that we should examine what underlies hostility and fear towards immigrants. Perhaps the most commonly raised issues from those who oppose all further immigration are the claims that immigrants are taking our jobs and homes. As my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece described in relation to the care sector, there are so many areas of industry and public services that would grind to a halt if it were not for those workers whose origins are overseas—whether they are first or subsequent-generation immigrants. It is not a phenomenon unique to the United Kingdom that immigrants, children and grandchildren of immigrants become the mainstay of the workforce in certain sectors. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, one in four NHS doctors is a migrant. Those who oppose immigration do not talk about the many thousands of jobs that immigrant entrepreneurs create by bringing investment and innovation into the country. Not only do immigrants as a whole contribute more to the British economy in taxation and national insurance than they take out in benefits, they also start businesses that employ many thousands of British people from every background.
As far as taking our homes is concerned, I wish there were more homes that immigrants could be accused of taking. The appalling lack of social housing and what, in some areas, is laughingly called affordable housing means that they are effectively out of the reach of hard-working families. Vast swathes of housing—particularly newbuild in London—are snapped up by overseas investors who have no intention of becoming immigrants. These are the real culprits, not immigration. It is much easier and politically expedient to blame immigrants for the housing crisis which successive Governments have created by their failure to build homes, particularly in the social sector.
There is no hope of considering this Bill objectively—as my noble friends Lord Avebury, Lord Taverne and Lord Roberts of Llandudno have said—if it is done against the distorted backdrop painted by UKIP, the Daily Mail and their sympathisers. They may have convinced too many of the electorate that the consequences of the economic recession for the labour market and the failure to build our way out of the housing crisis are the fault of immigration. It is easier to blame others than it is to blame ourselves, but we should not fall into the same trap. Listening to this debate, I am pleased that none of the Members of your Lordships’ House has done this.
We must have sensible, reasonable and practical controls on immigration; these are needed to address real problems with our existing rules and practices. We must, however, not have irrational, draconian and impractical measures to address the fictitious spectres created as scapegoats for the real challenges faced by families in this country.
The large number of noble friends who have spoken has made the depth of feeling and the concerns we have about this Bill very clear. As my noble friend Lord Teverson said, it is not just the measures; it is the damaging message that we are hostile that a Bill such as this sends to the rest of the world. Many in your Lordships’ House today, including my noble friends Lady Benjamin and Lord Clement-Jones, have expressed concerns about the effect of the Bill on overseas students, whose numbers should not be included in overall immigration figures in any event. We have learnt about the practical difficulties, particularly for overseas students seeking accommodation, that would be presented if this Bill goes through as it is.
The most important reform that we wish to see has nothing to do with this Bill. We want the correct immigration decisions made when the application is first considered. The UK Border Agency clearly was not working effectively and we welcome bringing immigration issues back within the Home Office. But, no matter what the grounds for appeal are or the number of appeals that are allowed, if currently 50% of appeals are successful the Home Office is not getting it right first time. Many of the problems with the current system—delays, indefinite detention and the detention of children—are the consequences of not getting it right first time.
Government effort and energy should be focused on improving the current system before implementing some of the changes proposed in this Bill. We want changes that work and, where we do not know whether they will work or not, we want them piloted. That is why the Government have agreed initially to limit the power to require landlords to check a tenant’s immigration status to one pilot area, rather than nationwide, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Over the weekend, we saw how difficult it is to check someone’s immigration status. Clearly that will be a major difficulty and we need to see how it works in practice.
Not much has been said about the fact that this Bill allows immigration officers to use reasonable force in the exercise of any of their powers, not just for removal. Coupled with the ability to take biometric information from those whom they suspect of being illegally in the country, that makes these high-profile raids on businesses run by people from traditional illegal immigration areas such as the Hong Kong Chinese even more worrying.
Detention without trial also is a serious issue, as Parliament has made clear even where terrorism is suspected. Not to allow appeals against detention within 14 days of proposed deportation without the authority of the Secretary of State is a worrying development. Replacing appeal to a judicial tribunal against a refusal to allow entry with an administrative review, when current appeals are running at about a 50% success rate, is again a concern. As my noble friend Lady Manzoor has said, were the decision-making in the Home Office already of a very high quality, we might be more relaxed about this measure. That may be a useful way forward in addition to, but not instead of, a right to appeal.
My noble friend the Minister no doubt will say that, with 87% of applications already being granted, there should be a higher degree of confidence in decision-making in the Home Office. However, the fact is that the 50% of appeals which are granted are the only ones subjected to a rigorous review. We do not know whether the decision-making in the 87% of cases is correct.
While many would support “deport now, appeal later” in relation to foreign criminals, allowing the Home Office, with its current record, to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes,
“a real risk of serious irreversible harm”,
as the only grounds for not going ahead with it, and extending the power to those whose presence the Secretary of State alone considers to be not “conducive to public good”, seems to give powers to a body that currently has a poor record of judgment.
Clearly, the Article 8 right to a family life needs to be balanced against the public interest—it is not an absolute right—but for the courts to be instructed what weight Article 8 rights should be given appears to me to be an interference with the balancing judgment that has previously been the sole responsibility of the courts.
It may be right that some of those from abroad who have not paid national insurance contributions should be charged for treatment under the National Health Service, but surely this should not apply to those who come here legally to work and who will in effect be paying twice through the charge proposed by this Bill and through their own national insurance contributions.
The Liberal Democrats want to support rational and practical steps to ensure that a firm but fair immigration system is in place. We need to be convinced that the measures proposed in this Bill will actually work without unintended and unacceptable consequences.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I declare a number of immigration interests. As Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons I was responsible for inspecting all places of immigration detention, during the course of which I found much wrong with the system, such as the use of inappropriate detention rules which, fortunately, I was able to correct. From 2007 to 2009 with my noble friends Lady Mar and Lord Sandwich I was a member of an independent asylum commission which submitted three reports to the then Government, containing detailed analysis of what was wrong with the asylum system and numerous recommendations for improvement.
In 2008, I forwarded a carefully researched dossier to the Home Secretary, entitled Outsourcing Abuse, which listed details of more than 70 cases of injury to failed asylum seekers undergoing enforced removal. In 2010, I was a member of a government advisory board on the use of child detention, whose recommendations I hope to see realised in this Bill. Finally, in 2011-12 I chaired an independent commission on enforced removals whose recommendations were forwarded to both the Home Secretary and the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. This followed the death of an Angolan, Jimmy Mubenga, in an aircraft at Heathrow at the hands of G4S escort officers and on which the coroner’s inquest verdict was unlawful killing. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I focus tonight on the clauses and schedules in the Bill to do with enforced removals.
Before that, I must declare my acute disappointment that yet again a Government have failed to tackle a major millstone that prevents the immigration system from being able to function properly: namely, the 502,412 unresolved cases, of which more than 190,000 were in the migrant refusal pool in July 2013. I was first introduced to this problem one day in 1997 while visiting Birmingham prison, where I was told that a number of foreign national prisoners had gone on hunger strike. When I went to see them I found that they were not foreign nationals who had committed offences, but Asian people who had been living in England for more than 20 years, most married with families and many with their own businesses. They had suddenly been rounded up, mostly in Yorkshire, and taken to Birmingham purely because it appeared to have space, so that their details and their right to remain could be checked. The trouble with having such a millstone around a system’s neck, particularly when resources are limited, is that progress is impossible because so many staff have to spend their time trying to keep its head above water. By progress I mean such things as introducing time limits on the completion of essential bureaucratic processes.
I was faced with a similar, but far smaller situation, when I was commanding troops in Belfast. Every base had a card index for everyone who lived, or had been questioned, in an area, going back several years, which was used to verify the identity of anyone stopped on the streets. Then we were issued with a computer system, but no guidance as to how it was to be loaded with data on literally thousands of cards. The only possible solution was to ground all my military policemen for two weeks and sit them at computers until they had transcribed every detail.
The only way that the Home Office will remove its millstone is to do something similar and draft in temporary staff until the millstone is cleared. Only then will there be time and space for change and improvement. Because of the avoidable damage that a chaotic and dysfunctional immigration system—which seems likely to be made worse by some of the proposals in the Bill—does to the national image, I would have expected that to have been appreciated and actioned years ago. I await the Minister’s comments on that suggestion with interest.
I turn now to Clauses 1 and 2 of Part 1, Clause 58 of Part 5 and Schedules 1 and 7. One of the depressing things about submitting a report to the Home Office, however constructive and well researched, is that you know that no one there will take a blind bit of notice of anything that is not produced in-house. My commission was appalled to find that the restraint techniques used by contracted private sector escort officers were required by the Home Office to be used only in prison. No one had bothered to check with the NHS, which had rejected the pain-compliant prison techniques, devising its own pain-free ones that were more appropriate for patients. Neither had the police, who come under the Home Office and who had developed pain-free techniques suitable for use in crowded and restricted public places such as river ferries been consulted. No training requirements were laid down and escort officers were neither accredited nor licensed. No one in the Home Office is qualified to do this, but no one had thought of approaching the Security Industry Authority, which is.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, the standard of casework is abysmal. All too frequently, escorts are told nothing about the characteristics of the understandably concerned people whom they are to escort until shortly before a flight.
Independent oversight was totally lacking until the Chief Inspector of Prisons was invited to observe a return flight and was appalled at the way in which escorts talked openly to and about returnees in front of him and them. Extraordinarily, independent oversight is said to be the responsibility of the Home Office Professional Standards Unit, which is incapable of doing what is required and bizarrely is itself overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which has nothing to do with asylum casework. It is hard to imagine anything less fit for purpose. We also strongly recommended improved powers for the Immigration Services Commissioner to deal with rogue advisers.
As this detail had not been found by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which had published a report previously on enforced removals, I discussed our findings with its chairman in the fond hope that he might take them formally into evidence in a reopened inquiry, in which case the Home Office might take them seriously, too. But despite assurances from time to time, he has not yet done that, so I hope that amendments to the Bill will provide the vehicle. I do not believe that Clause 1, or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which allows untrained and unlicensed immigration officers to use unspecified but allegedly “reasonable force”, when there is such an authentic catalogue of unreasonable force being used by those on Home Office contracts, including a charge of unlawful killing, should be allowed to stand. I go further by suggesting that it would be wholly irresponsible of this House not to try to ensure that current practice is wound up in favour of something more akin to our claim to be a civilised nation.
There is much else in the Bill about which other noble Lords have already expressed their unease. Yet again, we seem destined to spend long hours trying to improve legislation produced in haste and rushed through the other place without sufficient time for scrutiny. Bearing in mind how many Members of Parliament have regular contact with immigration problems in their constituencies, I am surprised that so little was done to amend what was laid before them. No doubt making up for that deficiency is a prospect to which the Minister looks forward with eager anticipation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for suggesting that I might step into the gap for a moment or two and I shall be very brief indeed. What we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, gives us great concern about the extension to all immigration officers of the power to use so-called “reasonable force” to bring about whatever the order before them is. I suspect that the noble Lord knows better than almost anybody else in this House how all these things operate. Unless we consider closely the illiberal power that we are effectively giving to every last immigration officer, this House should seriously ask how far it can possibly go along with it.
The second thing that I want to say is that, if noble Lords wanted proof of the huge contribution that immigrants have made to this country over the years, they only need to look around this House during this debate. I should declare my own involvement as, along with my noble friend Lord Dholakia, I am a patron of the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group. One of the most amazing occurrences is the group’s ability to recruit hundreds of volunteers from the neighbourhood of Gatwick, who come to be with, befriend, speak to and advise those who are locked up in that detention centre. That shows that, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, given the right leadership, the people in this country are capable of responding in the most warm and generous way.
I will conclude by asking three direct questions of the Minister, who is thorough in paying attention to the views and opinions in this House, which are always taken seriously, as they should be. The first relates to the interesting and detailed suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. How far have those been taken into account in reconsidering what the first tier should be able to bring to its attention in making the kind of decision that might actually be unquestionable, good, accurate and able to last? In all my life in politics—since I was myself a Minister of State at the Home Office—this has been the holy grail. Can we not find an answer in the first tier, to avoid the endless agony of paying legal costs and all the rest of it for a second, third, fourth and fifth tier? My first question therefore is: how far will the solid suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, be part of the changing and reform of that first tier?
The second question relates to the health surcharge. Here, my noble friend Lady Manzoor made extremely important points, but I want to add another. The BMA, the British Medical Association, which represents all doctors in this country, and the National Aids Trust, NAT, which looks in particular at HIV, have both spoken as clearly as they could about the great danger of any kind of fee at this level. For example, people visiting A&E or going beyond the GP whom they first see who advises treatment would be brought into the area of having to pay. How much will that discourage people who are already desperate for money from going to their GP, let alone going to A&E?
Yet we have in this country two major threats in infectious diseases. One is HIV, which is relatively easily transferred, and the other, which we have not so far mentioned, is drug-related tuberculosis, which is gaining ground every month that passes. This is partly because people are coming from parts of the world where there is extensive drug-related tuberculosis. This must be caught early, to ensure that it is not passed on. My noble friend Lord Patel—who, along with several others who came to this country in the last generation or two, has made such a contribution to the health service—knows very well the dangers that we are talking about.
The third question relates to something that we have not talked about at all, strangely enough: a distinctive flaw in the flow of immigrants to this country. To put it bluntly—and I do not mind being blunt in this brilliant debate—it is relatively easy at the moment for somebody who is truly wealthy to get into this country without too many problems with immigration. At the present time there are whole blocks of flats, very possibly including a block of flats that may emerge from Battersea power station, being auctioned in Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere for people who want a second home in London. That is not helpful to anybody. Above all, if the people who are part of that are people who have a lot of wealth in tax havens, it will not do immigration as such any good. However, if you are a poverty-stricken asylum seeker who has been fighting for democracy in your country, living with great risks, you will find it terribly difficult to get into this country, however hard you try.
I conclude with this. It was the late Aneurin Bevan, that great Labour statesman, who once said that you do not need to look into the crystal if you can read the book. Look around this Chamber, read the book, ask yourself what immigrants have brought to this country and be thankful for it, and let us make sure that we are not part of what one might call the narrowing of the British imagination by closing the door to the huge gifts and innovations and treasures that our flow of immigrants over the years have brought to this country.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I, too, should like to speak briefly in the gap. I apologise, but I was unable to be in the House until six o’clock today, and so did not put my name down for the debate.
My major concern about the Bill is its wide-ranging implications for the safety and welfare of children, not least the proposals to limit children’s access to healthcare and housing. Those and other proposals run counter to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further, Clause 14 would restrict Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I notice that the Minister asserts on the front of the Bill that it is compatible with the convention. I would like him to explain how that can be.
The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act imposed a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to have concern for the welfare of children. It is a requirement for the Home Secretary to ensure that regard is had for children’s safety and welfare in the implementation of government policy on immigration, asylum and nationality. That clearly includes the Bill, but the Explanatory Memorandum makes no mention of children apart from a brief comment in relation to the provision on biometric information. I do not understand how that can be.
There are other crucial issues in the Bill, such as the restriction of appeals, the effect on higher education institutions, about which we heard from many noble Lords, and more general access to healthcare and housing to people unable to prove their status.
As we all know, cuts are being made to the level of staff in the UK Border Agency, but that does not make it in any way appropriate for the gap to be filled, at least in part, by asking nurses and landlords to become the gatekeepers. What does that say about this country and the whole question of the compassion that we offer? My noble friend Lord Judd spoke eloquently on that, and it is lacking in the proposals in the Bill.
By common consent, the Bill was denied proper consideration in Committee in another place. We have six days of Committee in your Lordships’ House, which offers the opportunity for that imbalance to be corrected and to deal with some of the ways in which the Bill needs to be amended. I look forward to contributing to that process.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a lengthy, interesting and, at times, passionate debate. Some noble Lords have addressed the general approach to immigration and the overall thrust of the measures contained in the Bill. Other contributions have homed in on the implications of specific clauses and proposals, such as limiting the right of appeal for First-tier Tribunal cases when the real problem that needs addressing is the number of decisions appealed that are determined as being wrong.
Among other areas of concern regularly referred to this evening have been the impact of the proposals on international students, undocumented migrant children and landlords and prospective tenants. However, in the comments at the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon pointed out that it is equally relevant in this debate to talk about what is not in the Bill.
Before moving on any further, it is worth pointing out that the Bill has not been subject to the most thorough of consultation processes. Prior to the Bill, there was no draft Bill, Green Paper or White Paper. The Bill also appeared to be delayed in the other place for reasons which may have had more to do with internal issues within the larger party in the coalition than any other factor.
Then, 24 hours before the four-and-a-half-hour debate that was Report stage in the other place, followed immediately by a very brief Third Reading, the Government published a major new clause on deprivation of citizenship for conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the United Kingdom. This left little or no time for the Government’s proposed new clause, giving a significant power to the Secretary of State, to be considered in detail, including, for example, what would happen to people made stateless—my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred to this—and why there was no provision for judicial oversight. These were hardly the actions of a Government keen on providing the appropriate opportunities for scrutiny of their proposals by Parliament.
We also had the spectacle on Report in the other place of the Home Secretary’s speaking against one of her own Back-Bencher’s amendments, on deporting foreign criminals, to her own Immigration Bill. Having said that the amendment would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and would significantly undermine the United Kingdom’s ability to deport foreign criminals, the Home Secretary then failed to vote against it.
Finally, this weekend we heard that the Minister for Immigration, who proved himself not to be the greatest admirer of this House during the controversy on House of Lords reform, had resigned, since it appeared he had employed someone who was an illegal immigrant. This happened after the Government have repeatedly said that there will be no real difficulties for landlords in carrying out the new requirements in this Bill to ensure they are not renting accommodation to illegal immigrants. If a Minister for Immigration can get it wrong, there must now be even bigger question marks over the practicality of at least some of the proposals in this Bill and over the actual impact they will have on immigration in contrast to the headlines when they are first put forward.
My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made clear earlier our agreement that immigration needed to be properly and effectively managed, our agreement that we need to tackle illegal immigration and our agreement that we need to ensure that, when appropriate, foreign criminals are deported. On these important points, however, the Government have been wholehearted in their rhetoric and half-hearted in their actions. The infamous van and its advert, to which some noble Lords have referred, sums up this Government’s approach. Border and immigration staff have been reduced, the number of illegal immigrants deported has fallen and the number of businesses fined for using illegal workers has almost halved between 2009 and 2012. The Bill is silent on remedying the causes of these failures by the Government.
How much better it would have been for community relations in this country and for the whole tenor of the debate on immigration if the Government’s action had been wholehearted and the Government’s rhetoric half-hearted rather than the other way round. What is needed is a reasoned debate about making sure that immigration delivers positively for our country. That includes having appropriate measures to control immigration, tackling illegal immigration and abuses of the system, having an overall approach to addressing the impact of immigration on people’s lives—to give two examples, in the labour market and the housing market—but also recognising the benefits that immigration has brought to our country. That will not be achieved through legislation that was not properly scrutinised in the Commons and through legislation whose passage appears to be geared, as far as the Government are concerned, to deadlines related to elections in the middle of this year, if not beyond.
The Government have said they are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by May 2015. The objective is presumably 99,999, even if that means its being secured at the cost, to our country, of people leaving whom we should want to stay and highly qualified people, including university students, whom it would be in our interests to attract, not coming to this country. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are on track to meet their declared policy objective within the timescale laid down and what contribution the Bill is expected to make, if any, towards meeting the Government’s target on net migration and over what timescale?
Much of the Bill relates to illegal immigration, which is not covered by the Government’s “tens of thousands” objective. The Bill seeks to transfer some responsibility for controlling illegal immigration to specific groups of citizens of this country and, by implication, away from the Government. It does not, however, address the issue of exploitation and abuse of immigrants which, for so long as it is allowed to continue, contributes to the level of illegal immigration. Although we share the Government’s objective of wanting properly controlled and managed immigration, it does not let them off the hook of having to make the case for each one of their proposals in the Bill.
Making the case means providing hard evidence on the extent and nature of the problem or issue that the Government are seeking to address; providing hard evidence that the practical implications and feasibility of what is proposed have been thought through; and providing hard evidence that the claimed impact of what is proposed on the problem or issue that the Government are seeking to address is also a realistic expectation. For a start, the Government’s own impact assessment states, without any caveats, that the Bill,
“will make a significant contribution to reducing illegal immigration”.
That could be the case but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the hard evidence and figures on which that statement is based, including telling us by how much the proposals in the Bill will reduce illegal immigration.
It will also help detailed consideration of the Bill if the Minister could indicate which of the measures proposed in it the Government consider will make the biggest contributions towards reducing illegal immigration or impacting on the net migration figure. It is only right that we should have that information because concerns have been raised about some specific proposals in the Bill and, in some cases, the potential unintended consequences on law-abiding British citizens, legal visitors and visa holders who contribute positively to our country. People need to be in a position to make their own judgment on whether the evidence on the changes that the proposals will actually deliver justifies the risk of any associated unintended consequences if these cannot be addressed. What will not help would be if it becomes clear that there are proposals in the Bill that are here for show rather than effectiveness.
One proposal on which there has been some comment is that defining public interest in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when considering immigration cases. The Bill seeks to put on the statute book the terms of the most recent Immigration Rules. It is moving guidance or rules into law passed by Parliament, with a view to tying down how the judiciary interprets the public interest and the weight that should be attached to it in immigration cases. That is a significant development and the Minister set out the reasons for the Government going down this road in introducing the Bill. We have a whole raft of guidelines on sentencing across a range of offences and on the weight that should be attached to different factors. It would be helpful to know whether the way that the courts are interpreting other guidelines or rules is also a cause of concern to the Government and, if so, whether they are considering enshrining any of those in statute.
Coming back to the reasons for the Government including Clause 14, can the Minister give some indication of the number of judgments since the revised Immigration Rules came into effect which the Government have felt did not properly reflect the terms of those rules, in respect of what the public interest requires and the weight that should be attached to it? What number of judgments have there been which the Government feel have reflected the terms of those rules? Can the Minister also indicate what the Government anticipate will be the effect of passing Clause 14 into law on the number of people coming into and leaving this country in a calendar year?
Finally in respect of Clause 14, can the Minister spell out the evidence the Government are relying on to insert, as a statement of fact, its wording that,
“persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom”,
and who are able to speak English,
“are less of a burden on taxpayers”,
than—one assumes, although the Bill does not say it—those who cannot speak English and who are seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom? I am not saying that the proposed wording is factually incorrect but if such wording is to be enshrined in the law of the land, the Government ought to be clear about the hard evidence on which it is based and place it on the record.
In his introductory speech, the Minister spoke about policies and proposals in the Bill striking the right balance, and the Bill not making the United Kingdom less attractive to legal migrants. From the speeches today it is clear that most of your Lordships do not share this somewhat idyllic view of the Bill as currently worded. However, one opinion expressed by the Minister that will not be disputed is that over the coming weeks, as he said, this House will give this Bill the serious scrutiny that it now demands and needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long but thorough, wide-ranging and thoughtful debate on a topic of great interest inside this Chamber and in Parliament in general, and to people outside. Immigration is a topic regularly discussed the length and breadth of this country.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, it is important that we recognise the positive contribution that migrants have made to this country. I could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. Migrants will continue to make a great contribution to this country. It is none the less right and proper that Parliament acts where necessary to bring the legal framework that underpins our immigration system up to date, and to ensure that the welcome that we extend to migrants brings benefits to us all.
I have said that this has been a wide-ranging debate and if I were going to cover a fraction of the points in my reply this evening, we would be here long after taxis—indeed, I suspect, long after midnight. This would perhaps tax my ability to give satisfactory answers. I will seek to address the general issues that have been raised in the debate, but I hope that noble Lords will allow me something that I have frequently sought in debate and that is to write a commentary, which I will also copy to the Library, for all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and seek to address in detail the many questions that have been raised.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who wrote to me and indicated those issues that he has raised. We can see that they are significant ones and I think that the whole House would like a response to them, but to go into that detail now might take quite a while. My noble friend Lady Manzoor suggested that we should try to find ways of responding before we get to Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the same comment. So I will try to get a commentary on the debate to noble Lords for the beginning of the week when we come back after our recess, which will give people time to consider it before we go into Committee on this Bill.
Noble Lords know that my approach to legislation is to try to engage with and reassure them, and learn from them the points that they are making, and seek an understanding between the Government and this House. I have already had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I expect that that week when we return will be a busy one for engagement. I hope that any noble Lord who would like to see me for a chat about a particular issue will get in touch with me. I see myself as a servant of this House in that respect.
Before I go into any detail, perhaps I can start by referring to some speeches that I think tried to give the House a sense of the context in which we are discussing this issue. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater tried to put the issue that the Government face into context. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, a most excellent speech, if I may say so, which referred again to the bigger picture in which the policy decisions that we are talking about in the Bill need to be considered. My noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to the contribution of migration to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a brilliant speech, if I may say so—not one in which I could agree with everything that he said, but it was good that he expressed that point of view. It is a challenge for us in government to respond to the points that he made.
My noble friend Lord Eccles sought a reasoned approach, which I hope this House will bring to the subject. It is very easy to get passionate about this issue because people’s lives are affected by decisions that Parliament makes, but I hope that we can discuss it in a rational and positive way; that is certainly the way in which I see the legislation and myself. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots made, yet again, a remarkable speech, challenging some of the views of other noble Lords but, I think, putting at its heart social cohesion and putting migration—economic migration in particular—into some context, which challenged much of our received opinion on the issue.
Britain is now outpacing many of its competitors in its economic recovery. English is a global language and we have diaspora communities from across the world living in the UK. This is why it is not surprising that the UK is a destination of choice, not only for those who benefit our country but for many who wish to benefit themselves. We have many fantastic world-class universities drawing students to our shores but, sadly, not everyone who says they are here to study intends to do so. The National Audit Office reported that up to 50,000 students may have come to work, not to study, in 2009-10. Back then, student visa extensions were running at over 100,000 per year, with some serial students renewing their leave repeatedly for many years. So, while many have reminded me that student numbers are now down, we must remember why. The “Panorama” documentary broadcast—which, of course, none of us has been able to see, but about which we have heard much—would appear to have highlighted further abuses in the mainstream student route, rather than the student visitor route, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested. If the student route is indeed so abused, that should remind us why we need to be cautious in considering suggestions that students should be excluded from the net migration target.
The UK has a great offer to attract the best international students. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, this is principally because of the quality of the education that is offered here. Those with the right qualifications, sufficient funds to cover their fees and maintenance costs and a good level of English can study here. There is no limit on numbers. Visa applications from students sponsored by universities increased by 7% for the year ending September 2013. I accept the fact highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that the number of first-year Indian students in our universities declined slightly in 2012-13, but that followed a period of soaring numbers. The number of Indian students admitted to the UK doubled between 2008 and 2009. There may also be other factors at play; for example, the other day in Grand Committee the noble Lord himself mentioned the decline of the strength of the rupee. Further, in December 2013, the British Council published a survey of more than 10,000 young people across India. High-quality courses and institutions remain by far the greatest pull factor for students when choosing whether to study at home or abroad and—this is the most important thing—the UK was the most favoured destination and was chosen by 21% of the respondents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, whose expertise in and knowledge of the university sector I recognise, reminded us that the UK is the second most popular destination globally for international students. We are conscious of this and of the need to continue to make the UK attractive. The Bill does not undermine that. While numbers from India are down, by contrast there was strong growth from China, where numbers were up 6%, Malaysia, where they were up by 3%, and Hong Kong, where they were up by 15%, which shows that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in policy terms that is putting off high-quality students.
There have been suggestions from many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and other noble Lords, including, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with whom I have debated this issue before, that there should be exemptions from the health charge for students on the basis of the contribution they already make to the UK. My noble friend Lady Barker challenged the evidence base, but the Department of Health has estimated that the cost to the NHS of temporary migrants is about £900 million, and students would be responsible for a significant proportion of that. I accept that they are young and fit, but they still need medical treatment.
Not only should students make a contribution to what they take, but we are not alone in requiring a contribution. A student applying to Harvard in the USA would in most cases be required to pay a fee of $958 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s more comprehensive health insurance plan would cost a further $2,190 per year. In contrast, it would cost a foreign student applying to study in the UK around £450 for three years of NHS coverage under these proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said the money would go into the Consolidated Fund rather than the NHS. It does say that in the Bill but Clause 33 allows the sums collected to be applied in a way specified by order and—to reassure noble Lords on this point—on 20 January the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to departments and the devolved Administrations that the money that is collected by these charges—£200 in the main and £150 for students—will go directly to health services.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby cautioned us about charging for treatment and warned about its consequences. Indeed, a number of organisations have submitted their views on this issue. I hope noble Lords will allow me to respond to them in the commentary that I am sending.
I now turn to the question of housing and the point made by many noble Lords about the proposals relating to landlords. Students have nothing to fear from the landlord proposals. They have passports with visas which are easy for landlords to check. Landlords are used to managing lettings to students who have yet to arrive in the UK, and the regulations will not impede these arrangements continuing.
Noble Lords will have received a fairly thick, chunky, briefing document. I know it is rather late, but at least we have got it before Second Reading. We did not know who would be speaking at Second Reading. I recommend that noble Lords read it. There is a lot of detail in there for noble Lords.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Could he just comment on the fact that visas are quite often not available at a very late point? Indeed, some students suddenly find that, having arranged to come to this country, they cannot do so, because the visas are held up, or in some cases, withdrawn. Can he say how the Home Office can avoid that situation, which creates a great deal of tension and strain?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that issue. I cannot respond to it immediately, because I do not want to give a meaningless response, but I hope she will allow me to come back to her on that so we can have the full picture before Committee. I was just making a general point that students, perhaps, have less anxiety in this area, because of the nature of the visas that they have coming here.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, whose expertise in these matters I recognise, and my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, asked about the complexity of checks landlords will be required to conduct. The landlord check is undoubtedly simpler than that which employers must conduct. There are fewer technicalities, and with all migrants now being issued biometric visas, or biometric residents’ permits, the documentation is becoming much easier to manage.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Lister, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Roberts all raised how the Bill will impact on children. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 places a duty on the Secretary of State to safeguard and promote the welfare or best interest of children in the UK; Clause 14 of the Bill makes specific provision for it when the best interests of the child mean that the public interest does not require removal. The Bill does not change or undermine the Section 55 duty, which requires the Home Office to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. The children duty continues to apply to all cases involving children in the UK. I hope that reassures noble Lords. Children in care are not subject to the NHS treatment charges. The Bill does not change that, and there will be an exemption from the surcharge for these children and other vulnerable groups. I will be providing more detail on the exemptions in time for consideration in Committee.
We will also address some other notions about access to childhood immunisation and other public health issues. I want to reassure noble Lords on that point, and I am sure I will be able to do so.
On the appeals measures in the Bill, we want to see faster, better decisions being made in the first place by the Home Office. All noble Lords would agree that that is a desirable outcome. The Home Secretary has made great strides in this area with her reform of the former UK Border Agency. The customer service that applicants receive has improved, and is improving further. We are not complacent, but the administrative review approach to be introduced is not novel; it is used for overseas visa applications, for example. Last year, 20% of requests resulted in the reversal of the original decision, so it does work. There is a proper scrutiny of the process, and 90% of requests were dealt with in less than 28 days.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the Minister realise that the figure he has just given is a cause of worry—that 20% of visa applications from overseas were found to have been successful by the administrative review process that now takes place, but formerly, when they had the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, 36% of them were successful? Something is wrong with the figures there.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not think that there is, my Lords. My noble friend misunderstands the degree to which the appeal process has tended to be used to consider new evidence and new material that has been produced by applicants, which could be dealt with through an administrative process much more efficiently that would avoid the late delivery of papers and documentation, which has complicated many cases and prolonged their proper consideration.
The courts will still play an important role in cases that engage fundamental rights. I assure noble Lords on that. However, if an applicant does not qualify and their application is refused, an appeal should not be a way of prolonging their stay in the United Kingdom for months and, as noble Lords will know, in some cases for years. Many noble Lords have cited statistics on allowed appeals. My noble friend Lord Avebury did so, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lady Manzoor, who cited that as evidence of poor decision-making on the part of the Home Office. We believe that just over half the appeals are allowed because of casework error, and administrative review will resolve that. After casework errors, most appeals succeed on Article 8 grounds. When someone believes that they should be allowed to stay in the UK on human rights grounds, they should make a claim on that basis to the Secretary of State. Refusal of that claim will give a right of appeal protected by this Bill. We also need to keep the appeal statistics in perspective. Some 89% of applications from students and workers seeking to extend their stay in 2012 were granted rather than refused.
The evil of statelessness is well understood and that is why, in the shadow of the two world wars of the 20th century, so much work was done to reduce it. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made that clear. We have heard impassioned contributions from her as well as from the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Rosser, on that subject. The proposal in the Bill on deprivation of citizenship is an important measure, one that we anticipate will be used in very few cases but which we consider to be necessary to protect the vital interests of the United Kingdom. The measure is very tightly drafted; it falls within the scope of our declaration under the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and goes no further. Where the power will be used is in the anticipation that the majority of persons concerned can acquire another nationality. The Bill will return our legislation in this area to the position that the United Kingdom held as recently as 2003. There are safeguards, and I know these will be further examined by the House in due course.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that we can take it that we will discuss this matter in some detail in Committee. The views expressed in Second Reading here this evening have given us at least the scope of the measure. Our assessment is that this is likely to be very rarely used, but it is for situations which present a threat to the vital interests of the country. I think that people might want the Government to be in a position to exercise that, which is why the proposal is in the Bill. But let us discuss it. As ever, when the noble Lord debates issues he makes a good point, and I shall seek to satisfy him before we get into Committee.
If I may say so, I am looking forward to debating this Bill, which is an important part of the coalition’s legislative agenda. I welcome the engagement that we have already had on the Bill, and I think that we have established, even in this Second Reading debate, a sense of dialogue that I hope we will be able to continue. I should like to think that we will have a number of meetings before we meet again in Committee, and I look forward to continuing these discussions. In the mean time, I commend the Bill to the House and ask it to give the Bill a Second Reading.