Immigration Bill

Baroness Manzoor Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am almost tempted to say that you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. That 51% included those cases where there was administrative error. If one wishes to drive to improve the quality of decision-making, inevitably the number of successful appeals will go down.

In Committee, concern was expressed about the opportunities for scrutiny of the Immigration Rules. I am pleased to confirm that we are committing to publishing draft rules no later than the Summer Recess. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lady Hamwee about what I have said in my letter to her. I am happy to repeat that those rules will be the subject of a targeted consultation with key interested parties, including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and Universities UK. We certainly are open to discussions with noble Lords and organisations to which noble Lords consider this consultation should be addressed. The aim of the consultation will be to ensure that all relevant views are taken into consideration before the rules are finalised. The consultation will offer an opportunity for the rules to be scrutinised and potentially amended before they are laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Clause 15 creates a better process for all concerned—applicants, decision-makers and the court system. It will help to address the legitimate concerns raised about decision quality.

Amendment 13, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, would impose three conditions that would need to be met before the appeals provisions in Clause 15 came into force. The proposed sunrise clause would require: that the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration must first report on decision-making for entry clearance and managed migration; that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that decision-making for entry clearance and managed migration is efficient, effective and fair; and that the order to commence Clause 15 must be laid before and approved by both Houses. My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the possibility that, to be able to do that, we might need to have a shadow operation, which probably would be an administrative nightmare.

I submit that we already have reports from the chief inspector on decision-making in entry clearance and managed migration. In 2013, he reported on investor and entrepreneur applications, concluding that 91% of decisions on investor applications were reasonable. That report recommended that the overseas approach of sharing administrative review outcomes to improve decision quality should be adopted in-country. That recommendation of an approach recommended by the chief inspector has informed the changes which this Bill seeks to implement through Clause 15.

The inspection of entry clearance decision-making in Warsaw in December 2013 of out-of-country administrative reviews concluded that the service was efficient and consistently meeting service standards for completing decisions. In 88% of cases reviewed, the report concluded that the right decision had been reached. We accept that this report made five recommendations for improvement. We have accepted all of these either in whole or in part.

I assure your Lordships that the Home Office takes the chief inspector’s inspections and reports seriously. A dedicated team manages the implementation of his recommendations. In his spot-checking report of August 2013, the chief inspector considered the progress that had been made against recommendations from three earlier inspections and was pleased to see evidence that the Home Office was acting upon his recommendations. We already have evidence from the chief inspector who has looked at the administrative review procedures that are applied at present for out-of-country cases of managed migration. He appears to confirm that, in the cases that were reviewed, the right decisions had been reached. As I have said, in Warsaw that was in 88% of cases.

However, we recognise the concerns that prompted Amendment 13. Therefore, we have brought forward a government amendment which takes a different but effective approach to address those concerns. Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor imposes a specific obligation on the Secretary of State to secure an independent review of administrative review. It looks forward and will review new processes. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission the independent chief inspector within a year of Clause 15 being commenced to prepare a report on administrative review.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked for confirmation that it was intended that the report would be on the first year although commissioned ahead of the first year. As I have said, the report will be commissioned within 12 months of administrative review being implemented. The Secretary of State will ask the chief inspector to complete the report within the first 12 months of the operation of administrative review. In timing the commissioning of the report, we want to strike a balance between a desire for an early report on how administrative review is working and the need to let the process operate for a period before a meaningful report can be prepared. It is therefore intended that the Secretary of State asks the chief inspector to undertake his report once administrative review has been in operation for six months and to complete his report within the first year of the operation of administrative review. The chief inspector should build flexibility into his inspection plans to allow such specific requests.

The new clause requires that the Secretary of State commissions that report and the report must address specific concerns. If noble Lords look at the terms of the amendment, they will note that the specific concerns that the chief inspector is being asked to address are ones that quite fairly reflect some of those raised in your Lordships’ House in Committee—namely, the effectiveness in identifying and correcting case working errors and the independence of the person conducting the administrative review in terms of their separation from the original decision-maker.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

Will the chief inspector look at the substantive elements of the case rather than just the procedural review of the case and whether that has been effective? Will he also assess the merits of the case in the samples that he takes?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I mentioned to my noble friend the report on out-of-country cases in Warsaw in December last year which concluded that in 88% of the cases reviewed the right decision had been reached. You can do that only if you actually look at the subject matter. Therefore, I would fully expect that the chief inspector, in undertaking his report, would have to be able to give some indication as to whether there was greater efficiency and greater accuracy in decision-making. You would have to look at sample cases to see whether the right decisions had been reached.

Amendment 14, in the names of my noble friends, requires the Government to consult on the immigration rules for administrative review. As I have already indicated, the Government will undertake a targeted consultation on the immigration rules establishing administrative review before those rules are laid before Parliament. It is not necessary to place an obligation to consult on the face of the Bill as the Government have already committed to doing so. The proposed new clause also seeks to ensure that administrative review is the subject of an early inspection and report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee acknowledged, Amendment 12, tabled by the Government, requires the Secretary of State to commission such a report from the chief inspector.

My noble friend raised the out-of-country administrative review note that she received. She saw the same point that I had noticed, which indicated that out-of-country reviews are free. I then noted that the statement of intent, which was published along with the Bill, indicated that there would be a fee of £80. I have queried why that is the case. I understand that a separate charge for an administrative review is incorporated into the visa application charge. To do that for in-country reviews would require increasing visa charges. I rather suspect, given what has been said in a number of other debates, not least with regard to students, that that would not be the most popular course to go down. The review is free, but the cost is already incorporated within the visa charge.

I believe that we have accepted a recommendation emanating from the chief inspector about how administrative review can work. I believe that it will work because we are following up on recommendations that have been made about how these decisions can be made more efficiently. Where we have heard evidence of administrative review working for out-of-country applications, there has been a significant improvement over the 60% of errors that were identified in that period with regard to in-country appeals. Therefore, particularly with regard to the huge difference between 28 days and 19 weeks—I suspect overall that it will be cheaper if one does not have to engage learned counsel—we are proposing something here that will be of benefit not only to applicants but to the general administrative procedure as a whole.

Therefore—I suspect without any success—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and to recognise that the Government have listened to what was said in many cases in Committee. We are putting on the face of the Bill an obligation on the Secretary of State to commission a report from the chief inspector and particularly to have regard to the specific concerns raised in Committee. I therefore hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Manzoor Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[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.

Drugs

Baroness Manzoor Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, it is a real honour and a privilege to take my place on these distinguished red Benches. I have been overwhelmed by the sincerity of the welcome and the warmth and generosity of spirit shown to me by noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House. I thank you.

I also want to thank all the staff here for their dedicated service, and friendly and much valued support. My thanks go also to my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Jolly, for all their help, encouragement and wise words. They have attempted to ensure that I have at least a basic grasp of the workings of your Lordships’ House—no mean feat.

I understand that a maiden speech should not be controversial, so you can imagine the look on the faces in my Whips’ office when told them that I intended to speak in this debate—start as you mean to go on, I say. I shall be brief, as I have only five minutes, but I hope that I can make further contributions at another time.

Today’s topic is of immense importance and presents our society and institutions with huge challenges, so I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling this debate and thus enabling me to make my first contribution in your Lordships’ House.

Through my working life, and in particular nearly 20 years of work experience in the NHS, I have gained some knowledge of the impact and effects of illegal drug abuse on health services and witnessed the horrific cost, despair and misery that drugs can bring to the lives of individuals and their families.

The link between drug abuse or misuse and the negative impact on individuals and communities is clear. Also well documented are the links between illicit drug use and crime. The Government’s Drug Strategy 2010: Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery was important and I welcome it.

However, despite the fact that the usage of illegal drugs in the UK is falling, it is clear that in some areas, such as cannabis, the rates of use among young people in the UK are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, stated, among the highest in Europe. I am pleased to note, however, that greater clarity appears to be emerging on how we tackle this in the UK. I am particularly pleased by the recent comments of the leader of my party, the Liberal Democrats, that we need a more imaginative, open and, crucially, evidence-based approach to drug policy.

For my part, I wish to make three points in this debate: first, the importance of prevention and education; secondly, the issue of decriminalisation of drugs; and, thirdly, the importance of helping families and individuals. First, education is key, particularly education of the young. As a mother of two daughters, I understand the importance of that. Having a clear drugs strategy which is effectively monitored and evaluated is fundamental in all our schools, including fee-paying schools and academies. Early intervention is key, as is a cohesive implementation programme and a co-ordinated strategy between the new body, Public Health England, and the Department for Education. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that PHE must be the lead body in monitoring and evaluating the success of the education programme, and not merely a provider of centralised funds, if we are to make real progress on drugs education in our schools and in higher education. As a former governor of a number of higher education institutions, I know the importance of that.

Secondly, if the case for the decriminalisation of drugs or the retention of effective legislation to control their use was clear, there would be no merit in my address today. There is no such clarity, and the scourge of our times remains hotly disputed by those on both sides of the argument. Decriminalisation, when viewed against the vagueness of alcohol control on our streets, is not an obvious solution to the problem. Since the problem was recognised, we have appealed for a policy that is both firm and resolute. We have sought to use legislation to control and suppress those who use and abuse drugs, without much success. We have attacked the supply of drugs and the associated organised crime that supports it—again, without definable progress. That is not a condemnation of the paths that we have taken but recognition of the enormity of the problem.

Will decriminalisation solve anything? It seems that one effect would be to produce cheaper drugs with wider availability. That deregulation would introduce a massive problem of control of the drugs themselves. That would make them more accessible to criminals in countries with equally enthusiastic criminal resources, leaving the problem immune and further away from proper control.

I offer no clear solution, although I have drawn the view that continued control allows us to focus on related crime and criminals. Money-laundering, illegal alcohol, prostitution, gang warfare and even armaments are intrinsically linked to and caught up with the use and marketing of drugs. To remove the drug issue would in no way reduce the horrifying effects of serious crime, but would have the effect of drawing our attention, even partially, away from those involved in such crime. I cannot find it in my heart to support such a step.

However, there are other things that we can do here and now. This brings me to my third point: how we support those whose lives are affected by drugs. I believe that we must direct resources to help those suffering the consequences of the use of drugs and build a stronger, more cohesive society: one that helps the sick and disadvantaged and which values the importance of prevention and education in this complex and challenging area. That is why I support the view that responsibility for drugs policy should be moved from the Home Office, which rightly focuses on policing and law enforcement, to the Department of Health. That would allow a greater focus on the care and support we need to give people for them to get off drugs, into treatment and back into society.

I thank your Lordships for your patience during my first contribution to your Lordships’ House.