UK Visas and Immigration

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

I do not think I am able to respond to that question this evening but I will, of course, be writing to all noble Lords, and I will respond on that point. However, this is an issue on which I have been in discussion with officials—fairly vigorously, on my part.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Jones referred to correspondence. We need to ensure that Peers’ correspondence is being dealt with correctly and to look at the specific issues raised. I will write to her, which I am sure is what my noble friend expects. From my noble friend’s experience, she will understand that only Peers and MPs can expect to receive a reply from Ministers.

The decisions made by officials will sometimes lead to situations that people do not like but we have safeguards in place to make sure that they work properly. While there is room for improvement in both the operation and transparency of UK Visas and Immigration, this should not overshadow the fact that we are making real progress. One year on, UK Visas and Immigration is both better performing and more open than what came before.

In the remaining time, I will try to answer as many questions as I can. My noble friends Lord Steel and Lady Neville-Jones raised the issue of bonds and sponsorship. The Government considered during 2013 whether to pilot a bond scheme that would deter people from overstaying their visas. We decided not to proceed. Various considerations must be factored in when considering any such new scheme. These range from administrative complexities through to issues around fairness and whether it would be open to abuse.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I do not particularly favour the bond scheme but I think that the fact of the sponsorship is extremely relevant to an application. My anxiety is that when applications are made, only the financial circumstances of the applicant seem to be taken into account. The facts that all their costs are going to be covered and that they fulfil all the other criteria do not seem to be taken into account adequately so as to let them in. That is my worry: why is sponsorship from a reputable organisation not a sufficient guarantee, and can we not set up a system so enabling it to be?

[Earl Attlee]

As I said, I will be responding in detail to my noble friend but those are precisely the issues that I took up vigorously with officials.

In respect of the applicant to whom my noble friend Lord Steel referred, the applicant is welcome to make a fresh application at any time and, should he choose to make a further application, I would encourage him to address all the points made in his previous refusal. My noble friend also referred to Malawi. Our overall service overseas is good but we need to look in detail at the points that he raised. I understand his point about the loss of the visa fee but the work in assessing the application has already been undertaken and, if we were to return the fee for failed applications, we would then have to increase the fee for successful applications.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made important points about international train services and HS2. Perhaps the best way of dealing with this would be if the noble Lord and I seek a meeting with my noble friend Lady Kramer, with me wearing a Home Office hat rather than a DfT hat.

In response to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the Committee will know that we are in the middle of the Immigration Bill. I am personally fully seized of the benefits of students for all the reasons that he gave, not least that of soft power. However, whatever the benefits of students, my noble friend cannot deny that when they are here they require accommodation and public services.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised appeals with regard to the Immigration Bill. I think we should leave that until the Report stage of that Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness is looking forward to that stage.

I need to remind my noble friend Lord Phillips that the aim of the policy is to attract the brightest and best students. We continue to review our rules to ensure that we do this while discouraging abuse of all kinds. I am out of time but I will write to noble Lords where I have not properly answered their questions.

Drug Use and Possession: Royal Commission

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

Before the Minister sits down, will she explain why she will not have a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? It has obviously now been in place for 40 years. Whatever may be said about Portugal, the reality is it had a very high level of HIV before decriminalisation and now has a very good record. Most importantly, young people there are now less and less likely to go into drug addiction. In view of this evidence, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government will not even look at and evaluate, whether through an impact assessment or a royal commission, their own policies? We have very high levels of drug use in this country, and we are not doing well.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Baroness is doing us a slight injustice. I did not say that we would not look at anything; I said that we were going to base our current policy on constant evaluation. We understand that we need to look at how successful our policy is being. We do not believe, on the basis of the strategy that we wish to pursue, which has new elements to it, that the moment has come for a thoroughgoing review, but we are going to continue to evaluate the effects of our policy. I hope that that will convince noble Lords that we are not going into this absolutely blindly.

I would like to say one or two other things, but I must conclude. The Government will put resources, energy and ambition into pursuing a policy that we are endeavouring to make broader in its scope and more effective in its outcomes.

Counterterrorism Review

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, one reason why the Government were determined to deal with control orders before they even came into office was precisely because of our perception that they were damaging to community relations. In the evidence and the responses to questionnaires and surveys, stop and search comes up quite as often as a source of grievance, if not more so, than control orders, but the Government accept that they were harmful. The Government respect the role of the judiciary, which is one reason why we are bringing this regime into line with what we believe is legally acceptable.

On the question of the number of days needed to bring a successful prosecution, I have not asked ACPO the specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord. However, like the rest of us, ACPO has learnt from experience about the time needed in practice to bring successful charges, and made it absolutely clear to the Home Secretary—as indeed have the intelligence and security services—that it is content with the proposals.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions so that my noble friend can answer as many noble Lords as she can.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am happy to give a general welcome to the Statement. In confirming that this is not a mere rebranding of control orders, will the noble Baroness point to requiring the permission of the High Court, which seems to take us into a completely different legal structure? I suspect that many of us will wish to explore the evidential test that she mentioned and whether we can move towards a criminal test beyond reasonable doubt. Will she and her officials continue to work actively on that? Secondly, does she agree that arrangements that enable a person subject to the measure to work or study are very significant indeed? That control was extremely offensive.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Jones and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maxton]

If no compensation is to be paid, then presumably the card will become the property of the person who holds it. We briefly debated that point when we considered the Bill. Does that mean that the person who now holds the card as their own property, as they are not being given any compensation for it, will be able to use it to prove their identity in certain circumstances, such as for young people in pubs, or whatever else it might be?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we allowed the Minister to lay out her stall, as in doing so she may very well answer the noble Lord’s point. I know that the Minister is very keen that all noble Lords’ questions are answered.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I will respond to the noble Lord’s point. The answer is no. The card does not have value or efficacy because it is no longer attached to a database which would enable it to be a valid document that could prove your identity. It is simply a piece of paper, because there is nothing behind it.

I am not ignoring the fact that the cardholder spent £30 on a card for which there is no further use. During debates here and in the other place opponents of the Bill indicated that the decision to refuse to issue refunds will affect the poorest or the less well off members of society. However, there is no socioeconomic breakdown of cardholders, so neither noble Lords opposite nor the Identity and Passport Service can indicate the economic status of cardholders. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which a person struggling to make ends meet would think that buying an ID card was a necessity. If the ID card scheme was intended to allow travel to Europe or to provide proof of identity to get into pubs and clubs, then, frankly, it is doubtful that we should consider this form of purchase to satisfy the criterion of core household spending.

There is no provision in the Identity Cards Act, which the Benches opposite passed in 2006, for applicants short of cash or on a limited income—