Immigration Bill

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Monday 17th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

I did accept, in the last words I said, that some cases from certain countries can take a long time to determine, but in the case of the failed asylum seekers, they have failed to convince the courts that they have a good case.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, does my noble friend not recognise that there are probably hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned to their countries of origin and who are left destitute in this country because they are unable to work? Does he not think that in those cases, such as the refugees from Iran who are not accepted back by their country of origin, it is ridiculous to allow them to fester here for years without work?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, they are failed asylum seekers, and it is their choice to stay in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

No, that is not true. I am sorry, my Lords. I was talking about the people who cannot return to their countries of origin and whom the Home Office recognises are stopped from returning to their countries of origin by reasons of the decision of their state. In the case of Iran, for example, there are thousands of asylum seekers who are prevented from returning to their country of origin because the state will not allow them to.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I accept that there are some people in the class that my noble friend describes.

My noble friend Lady Williams talked about supporting a family on £5 a day—I cannot recall exactly what she said—but the payment levels for asylum seekers with children are much higher. A family with two children receives approximately £170 per week. Accommodation is also provided, with utilities—electricity and gas—provided free.

Amendment 72 would make the support given to failed asylum seekers and persons on bail, known as Section 4 support, the same as the support given to asylum seekers—Section 95 support. This is inappropriate, as the types of assistance are different and serve different purposes.

The support that we provide to asylum seekers enables us to meet international obligations. However, there are no obligations routinely to assist failed asylum seekers, the vast majority of whom can reasonably be expected to avoid the consequences of destitution by returning to their own countries—although I am mindful of my exchange with my noble friend Lord Avebury. Exceptions are made only where there is an unavoidable obstacle preventing the person’s immediate departure; for example, if they are too sick to travel, need time to obtain a necessary travel document or have made further submissions relating to their asylum claim. These arrangements ensure that the individuals do not suffer inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of being left homeless or without support.

We also use Section 4 to provide accommodation to persons released from immigration detention on bail. The provision of accommodation in this instance is solely to avoid the person being unnecessarily detained through lack of a suitable bail address. Section 4 cases are provided with a weekly allowance to cover their essential living needs provided they move into accommodation supplied by the Home Office. Existing legislation explicitly prevents the allowance being provided in cash.

My noble friend Lord Roberts referred to the limitation as to the retailers involved. In my personal experience, supermarkets provide better value for money than many corner shops. The value and flexibility of the allowance is rightly less than the allowances provided under Section 95. Section 4 support is a temporary fix for people who are not asylum seekers and in nearly all cases need to make arrangements to go home.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the situation in other European countries. She will be aware that these countries have different legal systems and that this country is a very attractive destination.

In answer to my noble friend Lady Williams, I fear that I will be unable to recommend to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that she change the policy, for reasons that I have given. In light of these points, I hope that my noble friend Lord Roberts will agree not to press his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the situation is no different from that of a young tearaway motorist who loses their licence because they are banned, and then continues to drive without insurance. It is just another category of someone who is driving illegally.

I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have to say, but I have to stand my ground and hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment in due course.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, can the Minister tell your Lordships how many asylum seekers who failed their appeals but are left here because of their inability to return to their country of origin there are? Can he say for what period they are granted temporary leave to remain? Is it more or less than 185 days?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me a detailed question about failed asylum seekers who cannot go home. I will gladly write to him with full details.

Immigration: Tuberculosis Testing

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is a problem in the big conurbations, due to deprivation and very dense accommodation. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are on the case. We regard it as a serious problem. Further to the article in the Financial Times, we recognise that we must not let it get out of control. That is partially why we are insisting on testing people outside the UK so that we do not incur the costs for the NHS. It costs about £6,000 to treat someone who is very susceptible to treatment with antibiotics but if they are multiresistant it can cost £100,000 to treat them. We need to make sure that we do not import health problems and we concentrate on solving our own health problems—not just by activities in the NHS but also by improving housing, which I am sure all Governments have striven to do over the years.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, as blood tests for latent TB are already available to migrants through their GPs, is not the answer to encourage greater voluntary take-up in areas such as the noble Lord opposite mentioned—Birmingham, Hounslow and Newham—and enlist the help of diaspora organisations from the 67 countries where TB is most prevalent to increase the rates of take-up? Since the countries that undertake pre-emptive screening all depend on X-rays, as we are now doing with overseas checking of would-be migrants from those countries where active TB exists, and none is contemplating pre-emptive blood testing, should we not have discussions with those countries to concert a common approach on what should be done about pre-entry blood testing in overseas countries?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I look forward to reading my noble friend’s comments in Hansard in the morning but it is important that testing is targeted. The health professionals will offer tests where they are most effective and most likely to find a problem.

Crime: Drink-driving

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Monday 8th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think I shall be having a chat with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about that matter tomorrow. It is important to understand that other European countries have a lower limit but also much milder penalties. We have a policy of a slightly higher limit, which is based on the Grand Rapids study, but with severe penalties for the slightest infringement. Our results are better than the European results. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not an anti-European policy.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, what advice have the Government received about the number of lives that could be saved by lowering the limit to 50 milligrams?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the only thing that my department is concerned about is saving lives by having an effective policy. That means correctly allocating resources and addressing the most serious problem, which is persistent unregulated drinkers who consistently flout the law and drive with very high blood-alcohol levels.

Gypsies and Travellers

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the communication from the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on the adequacy of the provision of accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers in the United Kingdom.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government replied to the letter from the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on 27 February. A copy was placed on the Council of Europe’s website on 1 March. The Secretary of State’s letter gave details of the measures the Government are taking to improve the situation of Travellers, particularly in relation to the provision of sites.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, my noble friend may be aware that local authorities are intending to provide planning permission for less than half of the accommodation that was shown to be necessary in the comprehensive assessment of need conducted during the previous Parliament. First, what immediate action are the Government going to take to increase the number of sites in order to match their legal obligation as identified by the high commissioner to provide adequate housing for Gypsies and Travellers? Secondly, have any of the local authorities and social housing agencies to which the Government recently granted a total of £47 million to build new sites identified the land they intend to use for this purpose, let alone applied for planning permission on it?

Gypsies and Travellers

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, can we now assume that there will be a further consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that incorporates a version of the Traveller document, as recommended by the CLG Select Committee? If so, will the new composite document include a revised and more inclusive definition of Gypsies and Travellers for the purposes of both housing and planning which is based on the Housing Act 2004?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to my noble friend but we will have to wait to see what the Government’s response is. However, we will not have to wait too long.

Asylum Seekers

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, Miss Besong is a failed asylum seeker, having had her appeal and further submissions dismissed by the courts, not by UKBA. She became appeal rights exhausted this year and therefore subject to enforced removal action if she refuses to leave the UK voluntarily. On the noble Baroness’s second point, about leaving it to appeal, it is open to legal and other advisers to introduce new evidence to the UKBA at any point between the original decision and the appeal hearing. Asylum could then be granted before the appeal is heard. It is not clear to me why this does not happen more often.

[Lord Avebury]

Does the noble Lord accept that at the asylum stakeholders’ meeting on 4 August the UKBA said that it had not released any victim of gender-based violence from the detained fast-track and did not consider it a reason for releasing a person? Is this not a breach of the undertaking that was given to the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe that:

“Particularly vulnerable applicants including … victims of trafficking or sexual violence … are not dealt with within the DFT process as a matter of policy”?

Does my noble friend accept that as the success rate of appeals by women against refusal of asylum is running at 50 per cent, it is clear that the improvements in procedures for dealing with gender-based violence in the criminal justice system have not read across to the UKBA?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think I have already explained why there can be very good reasons for the overturn rate at appeal. As regards the noble Lord’s question about detained fast-track, I am confident that legal protections for the detainee must be in place, but I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.

Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Congestion Charges and Parking Fines

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend knows the details of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, under which diplomatic cars are inviolable. Therefore, we cannot clamp them.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion. The Government should seek statutory power to tow away any vehicle that has been the subject of several previous parking fines that remain unpaid.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I repeat the point that I just made. Diplomatic cars are inviolable. The other problem is that we could get into a tit-for-tat situation with our diplomats overseas. I suggest that that would not be a sensible course of action. It would be much better to continue to apply the pressure that we do.

Travellers: Dale Farm

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Home Office has agreed to set aside contingency funding, up to a maximum of £4.65 million, to assist with the costs of policing the proposed evictions at Dale Farm. The final grant awarded will be agreed after the operation and will only cover the costs incurred. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government has committed to provide up to £1.2 million to Basildon Borough Council to support the evictions at Dale Farm.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the decision to spend £117,000 per family on eviction of these people from the Dale Farm site considering that there are no other sites in the county to which they could be directed? Does this policy not simply mean that another £18 million will have to be spent by local authorities down the line on evicting the same families from even less suitable locations, to say nothing of the downstream costs on health, education and the social costs arising from these evictions?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue which my noble friend has worked on to good effect for decades. He suggests that this is an inappropriate use of potentially several million pounds of public money. However, there will be no need for any expensive police operation if those served with eviction notices leave within 28 days having exhausted all their appeal rights under our well developed system of justice and the rule of law. Why should one community group be allowed to flout our planning laws by suggesting disorder and thus an unaffordable police operation while a lone family or individual is easily required to comply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely important point. If we carry on not properly educating Traveller children we will never break the cycle, because it is very difficult for Traveller families to engage in fully legitimate economic activity if they have not been properly educated. I referred to undertakings in my answer to the noble Baroness: the local authority has to deal with these issues.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain where these people are supposed to go, considering that there are no other sites in Essex, and no sites in the county plan?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the local authority has obligations under the law of homelessness, as the noble Lord fully appreciates. I go back to my original point: we cannot allow people to flout our planning laws.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011.

As your Lordships will recall, I came to the Committee on 7 February and subsequently obtained approval to charge for visa, immigration and nationality services under the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011. At that time I said that specific fee levels would be set in separate legislation using the affirmative procedure. That is the purpose of today’s debate.

The fees paid by those making visa, nationality and immigration applications are set out in regulations made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Under Section 42, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an application that exceeds the administrative cost of determining the application. The way our legal powers are defined means that we must also specify fees in separate regulations under the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

These regulations are to set the fee for applications, processes and services that are provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the application. These regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 March 2011, are subject to the negative procedure and are not debated at all in this House. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated, but I am happy to take points on any of the fees proposals here today.

In general, we are proposing to limit the majority of increases to less than 10 per cent. For example, we propose to increase the sponsorship application fees by 3 per cent and will maintain our concessions for small businesses and charities who want to sponsor migrants. The increases in these fees will be the first since the points-based system was introduced in 2008.

Increases to fees that do not follow this approach are fees for dependants applying to extend their leave in the UK at the same time as the main applicant. Currently these fees are set between one-quarter and one-third of the corresponding main applicant’s fees. We propose increasing this ratio to half of the main applicant fee. This continues our agreed policy to better align our fees in and out of the UK, where all dependants already pay the full fee. This will better reflect the processing cost to us for each individual within any given application, as well as sometimes an independent set of entitlements.

Also, the fees paid overseas for those seeking entry through tier one post-study work will increase by more than 30 per cent. This will bring the fee paid by migrants overseas closer to that paid by those who applied for this route in the UK. The vast majority of applications made under the post-study work route are made in the UK.

Also, there will be further increases to fees for visa applications under tiers four and five of the points-based system; these routes continue to be charged below the administrative costs of processing the applications.

New fees being introduced include fees for amending a previously issued nationality certificate, other than when this amendment is being made to correct an error made by the UKBA, for providing certain stateless persons with the ability to acquire the status of a British protected person, and for the registration as a British citizen for the children of foreign national soldiers serving in the UK armed forces. This would align our fees legislation to reflect the rule changes that have simplified such registrations.

New fees are also being introduced for tier two intra-company transfers coming to the UK for less than 12 months, where the applicants pay a lower fee than those coming for more than 12 months.

We welcome the economic, cultural and social contribution made by legal migrants to the UK. We continue to ensure that the fees for immigration and nationality demonstrate that the UK is open for business and retains its position as an attractive destination. We also continue to monitor the economic, equality and diversity impacts of our changes and to ensure that our fees continue to be priced at levels which make them competitive when compared with those in other key countries.

I believe these regulations provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system, which all noble Lords will want. I commend them to the House.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his careful explanation of the order that is in front of us.

This order is drawn to the special attention of the House by the Merits Committee, but it does not say what is unusual about the order or what distinguishes it from other orders covered by the same report; particularly the three orders dealing with amendments of fees for other services. According to its terms of reference, there are four grounds on which the Merits Committee may draw the attention of the House to an instrument, draft or proposal, and in this case your Lordships may think that the only ones that might apply—or should apply—are,

“that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.

Assuming that is the case, the only matters of substance raised in the delegated legislation Committee of another place were the effect of the order on Bangladeshi and Chinese restaurants, and the question of whether UKBA would be able to cope with the workload of dealing with applications.

Since the Government have taken steps to reduce the number of immigrants the burden will be eased, but the 5,200 cut in UKBA staff is more than proportional to the reduction in the number of cases that they are expected to process.

The predicted effect of the fee increases on applications varies between zero and 2.5 per cent in the case of an application by a tier four student to change his course, which has been free in the past but is now to cost £386. On top of that, the requirements for tier four applicants have been tightened up further. Applicants from outside a university, for example, will have to present a test certificate from an independent test provider of their competence in English to level B2. It would be surprising if these new requirements did not have a larger deterrent effect, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could give us his estimate of the drop in the number of tier four applicants expected from the Home Secretary’s announcement last month. We need this to be able to assess the expected increase in the average productivity of immigration officers dealing with tier 4 cases, and hence to get a feeling of whether the reduction in UKBA staff numbers can be managed without damaging the quality of their decisions.

The rationale of the order is that fees should be set at the correct level to ensure that the income generated contributes adequately towards the costs of running the immigration system. The impact assessment estimates that UKBA income will rise by £65 million as a result of the fee changes proposed, but what will the total income be, and how close will the UKBA be to balancing income with expenditure after the cuts have taken place? I apologise to my noble friend for not having given notice of the questions that I am asking as I would normally do; I just did not have the time.

I understand that the Government have decided to defer implementing the proposed cuts in the UKBA until they have disposed of the remaining legacy cases. Will my noble friend confirm that? How many of those cases were still on the books at the latest convenient date, and what has been the average rate of completion of those cases since the start of 2011? They have always been pretty vague about when the legacy cases are going to be completed. I should have thought, as we were approaching the end of the process, that it ought to be possible to be a bit more precise now.

Under what conditions may the fees themselves be waived? For example, the fees for the registration of a minor as a British citizen are rising significantly. This is money that is intended not just to cover the administrative cost of the application but to make a profit for the UK Border Agency. If a child is prevented from registering as a British citizen for no other reason than a fee, designed to make profits for the UKBA, how does that meet the “child’s best interests” principle under the convention on the rights of the child, to which the Government are a signatory?

I have had a letter just now from Cambridge Assessment, which I think is a firm that is well known to the UKBA for supplying services in English-language skills. It expresses concern that those who cannot pay fees may not be able to learn crucial skills that they need to find work and play a positive role in their communities, as we would all wish. I have not had a chance to discuss this in detail with Cambridge Assessment, but the firm has asked me for a discussion and I am intending to meet it and go into these points in more detail. Has the Minister considered the effects on people who do not contribute to society because they are unable to find the fee for the English-language test?

Another important question relates to the ministerial authorisation on race discrimination, which was covered by a letter on 21 March from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association to the Minister, Damian Green, of which I have seen a copy. This permits the refusal of applications on grounds of specified nationality and the making of additional requirements or examinations that would not be required of another nationality and that may lead to refusal. The applicant will not know, because the specified nationalities will not be made public. He or she will have paid the fee —which is much higher than in previous years and is increasing again—but may be refused by reason of his or her nationality and not on the strength of his or her application. Perhaps the noble Earl would comment on that.

The ILPA letter also makes the general point that if the UKBA is to make a profit from charging fees, it should deliver a commensurate service. For instance, its service standards include timeframes within which applications should be dealt with, but it constantly fails to meet them. There is also the grossly unfair practice of refusing an application that would have been approved under the rules in operation at the time it was made because the rules changed some time later. The least that should happen in those circumstances is that the fee should be refunded.

Immigration: Asylum Seekers

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will exercise the power in Section 94(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so as to restore the right of appeal against refusal of asylum to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people from Jamaica, Nigeria and Ghana.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, unsuccessful asylum claimants have a right of appeal to the UK courts. Designation under Section 94(5) does not deny a right of appeal to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual applicants from designated countries including Jamaica, Nigeria and Ghana. However, claims from nationals of non-suspensive appeal designated countries that are clearly unfounded must be certified as such and can be appealed only from outside the UK. There are no plans to change this.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, the UKBA has collected figures on LGBT asylum seekers since last July, immediately after the Supreme Court ruling that the wrong test was being applied to them. How many cases have been recorded for each of these countries since then? If the overwhelming majority of them were either granted asylum on their application or allowed an appeal notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, does my noble friend agree that the law should correspond with the practice, as it already does for women?

Asylum Seekers: Medical Treatment

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

No, my Lords, it is a question of prioritising resources, and I am confident that the UK Border Agency will be able to carry out its statutory duties.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the UKBA appears to have no recent policy on HIV-positive detainees, but that there is anecdotal evidence that some of them are being denied medication while in detention and that they are being given only one month’s supply of ARVs when they are removed? Will the Government consult the British HIV Association with a view to adopting the guidelines which it published two years ago, including provision of a three-month supply of medication to those who are deported, which would give patients at least some chance of finding an alternative source of treatment?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, while asylum seekers are in the UK and have not exhausted their appeal rights, they are entitled to the full range of NHS services. Asylum seekers who are returned should be supplied with sufficient drugs to meet their needs and tide them over until they can access drugs in their country of return. However, I will look further into the issue raised by the noble Lord and come back to him.

Roads: Drink-drive Limit

Debate between Earl Attlee and Lord Avebury

Thursday 4th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first, I have had no blandishments from the drinks industry and am actually quite surprised by how little effort it is putting into lobbying the Government. Clearly, it is lobbying, but not as much as it could.

Going back to my point about regulated and unregulated drinkers, I think that it is not clear how lowering the BAC, which would have a significant impact on regulated drinkers, would have any beneficial effect on unregulated drinkers who have no intention whatever of meeting their moral or legal obligations.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, in 2009, drink-drivers caused 390 deaths and almost 23,000 serious injuries at a cost to the taxpayer of £15.6 billion. How many of these casualties could have been avoided and how much of this expenditure could have been saved if we had reduced the legal limit to 20 milligrams, as is the case in Sweden? What other measures in the report that has been referred to, such as making persistent offenders pass a test before they can resume driving after a ban, are now being considered?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we need to consider carefully the effect of lowering the blood alcohol limit. Suppose that we lowered the BAC to 50 milligrams and a traffic patrol detected a motorist driving with a BAC of 65 milligrams. It would take the patrol at least an hour to process the suspect, during which time it would be unable to detect the unregulated drinker to whom I referred, who might be driving with a BAC far in excess of the current limits.