Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It would not be in my nature to take anything for granted where Parliament is involved. However, I think I made the position of the Government quite clear on guardians for trafficking when the amendment was considered, and the noble Baroness herself has been well aware of that. I hope she will accept what I am saying. It will be a matter of our listening to the House of Commons, as we must now call the other place, and giving it an opportunity to present to us what it considers of our amendments. That is a reasonable position to take. Meanwhile, this change to the Long Title facilitates the adoption of my noble friend’s amendments, which I hope the House will support because they will be welcomed by many and assist individuals hitherto precluded from British citizenship by historical anomaly. They will therefore be able to register as British citizens if they wish to do so. I am extremely happy to be able to offer my support to my noble friend in this matter.

[Lord Avebury]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks and for his undertaking to take an opportunity, I hope in the near future, to raise the question of overseas territories and how their position can be brought into line with what we are now about to agree, as far as our own citizenship is concerned.

We have whittled away at the wrongs of history in 2002 and 2006, and now again in 2014. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that on a future occasion we will be able to rectify some of the remaining difficulties that affect our nationality law, particularly the wrong that I think we did to people whose parents did not register them when they were minors. It would have been right, not just in the case of the illegitimate but also for those who were born to married parents, to allow those individuals when they became adults to exercise the rights that their parents had not exercised on their behalf.

However, that is only a very minor niggle compared with my pleasure at being able to move an amendment that grants citizenship to people who are illegitimate in circumstances where, if their parents have been married, they would have had it long ago.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No one can be unaware of the fact that detention is a necessary evil. It is part of the requirements that we have in enforcing an immigration policy. However, the inspection by the Chief Inspector of Prisons found very little evidence of victimisation of women at the centre. It was felt that there was insufficient recognition of particular vulnerabilities of detained women; those points were taken and are being addressed by Yarl’s Wood.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, apart from the chief inspector’s findings on the lack of recognition of the vulnerabilities of women detained in Yarl’s Wood, there was also a finding that the quality of rule 35 reports was poor. Was not the refusal to admit Ms Manjoo not only a kick in the teeth for the UN, violating the terms of its mandate, but an unfortunate indication that those concerns had not been addressed, as the special rapporteur seems to have suspected?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, my Lords, that is not the case. Yarl’s Wood was inspected by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons last year and, overall, the report was positive. I mentioned those aspects of which I felt it was important for the House to be aware. Detention is an essential part of effective immigration control and we take the welfare of those in our care very seriously. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has responsibility for ensuring that those standards are maintained.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 7th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, I will just pick up a point that my noble friend made about the difference in powers between the advocate on one side and the guardian on the other. The point was raised in the memorandum sent to us by the Refugee Children’s Consortium whether or not, without “legal powers”, there will be anyone,

“to instruct solicitors on a child’s behalf and ensure that decisions are made in their best interests”.

Would the advocate have those powers to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf? I take it that a guardian certainly would have those powers, which is an important difference between the two proposals that we now have before us.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been interesting. This is not the first time that the House has discussed the issue, but I am pleased that it has been raised again for noble Lords to consider. I am also pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, feels that we have travelled a long way. It certainly seems as if we have done so. I accept the feeling that lies behind the amendments and, if I urge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to withdraw her amendment, it will be on the grounds of things that I will tell her that the Government are doing, not because I think that her feeling on the issue is wrong.

The Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out all forms of modern slavery, and the work on this issue continues apace. I think my noble friend Lord McColl probably knows this already, but there are no half-measures in what we are going to propose. Last December, the Home Secretary published a draft Bill on modern slavery—the first of its kind in Europe—which will ensure the harshest penalties are available for offenders. It consolidates and simplifies existing offences, making the law easier to apply. At the heart of everything we do is the desire to support and protect the victims and to ensure that they receive the help they need to recover from their traumatic ordeal. I met with Frank Field last week, who noble Lords will know is working closely with the Home Office on this very issue, as indeed are a number of noble Lords.

We have listened to the concerns raised in this House and we agree that these children must be afforded the best support and protection from the state. Since this House took a view on this matter during the passage of the Children and Families Bill in December, the Government have announced a trial of specialist independent advocates for trafficked children. The trial will test the specialist independent advocates against the existing system, which will be supported by new, strengthened statutory guidance and regulation in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, showed how important it was that this new system should be able to work reconciled with our existing system, so that we get the best from it. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that these specialist, dedicated advocates will be experts in trafficking, and completely independent of the local authority and social services department. Their role will be to steer the child through the complexity of the multiple government agencies—not just local-authority care, immigration and criminal justice but all government departments. This is to ensure that the child’s voice is heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I see the point that the noble Baroness is making. I see no reason why not. If it has security connotations then perhaps it cannot be made public. However, our idea is that the independent reviewer should not be denied information that it considers important to perform its statutory duties as required by our amendment.

The noble Baroness asked about an example of where an individual would be deprived of citizenship on grounds of economic well-being. I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on 26 March and a copy would have been sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. In my letter I agreed that any situation which threatens vital economic assets is likely to be covered by terrorism considerations, but for that very reason we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be properly considered under this power.

The noble Baroness asked whether this goes against the UK’s international obligations to those countries that allow entry to British citizens who are subsequently deprived of that nationality. In the vast majority of cases, it does not. However, the Government note that the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness created limited obligations in this respect. These obligations are limited to the 11 states that have ratified the protocol and apply only if certain conditions are met.

A number of noble Lords mentioned Professor Goodwin-Gill’s paper and his illustration that it was contrary to international law. Professor Goodwin-Gill has some expertise on this topic since he was part of the legal team representing Al-Jedda, but on this topic we believe that he is wrong. He based his analysis in large part on the opinion of Judge Read in the 1955 International Court of Justice case of Nottebohm, but Judge Read’s judgment was a dissenting judgment. We cannot accept the conclusions which Professor Goodwin-Gill derived from it. There is a very limited basis for an obligation to readmit people deprived of citizenship in very limited circumstances, as set out in Article 1 of the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness. The limited number of state parties that have ratified this convention, together with the lack of state practice conforming to its provisions by states that are not party to the convention, shows that it does not constitute customary international law.

[Lord Avebury]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he has gone into some detail on Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill’s paper, would it be possible for him to lodge a paper in the Library, commenting on all the points raised in it? The Minister also quoted the views of the UK representative when the special protocol was agreed, who was very much in support of the idea that depriving people of their citizenship while they were abroad is illegal.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will be happy to do that. However, I am conscious that noble Lords have been asking for answers today and to give what my noble friend has asked for would probably take the rest of the evening. I do not intend to do that, but I will do it in writing and lodge a copy in the Library.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend has long campaigned about the citizenship rights of children of British mothers, and indeed he was involved in getting us to where we are today in having a route for those born before 1983 to acquire the status that they would have had had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. However, as my noble friend will recognise, nationality law is complex and it is not straightforward to legislate to cater for all the anomalies that exist.

Before I discuss the amendment, noble Lords will remember that my noble friend introduced an amendment in Committee concerning the citizenship position of illegitimate children of British fathers. I committed to consider the matter further. I have not forgotten. It is in hand and I am continuing to look at this in conjunction with my noble friend. He will have seen our first two attempts to deal with this matter and he can be assured that yet another, more straightforward version will be with him shortly. The intention is that an amendment on the issue will be brought forward at Third Reading.

The amendment proposed by my noble friend today seeks, as he said, to amend Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow a person to acquire British citizenship through their grandmother if they would have been able to do so had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. I understand that citizenship could normally be passed on for one generation born overseas but that there are a limited number of cases where a person could acquire citizenship on the basis of their grandfather’s citizenship. An example of this might be where the grandfather was born in the UK and either his child or grandchild was born in a country, such as a UK protectorate, where the Crown exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Although I recognise what my noble friend is trying to achieve here, I reiterate the point that was made when this issue was debated in the past: we can only go so far to right the wrongs of history. The original intention of Section 4C was to cater for the children of UK-born women, but the current legislation affects all children of British women. However, we think that there would be difficulties in extending this further to cover the grandchildren of British women as that could result in even more complexities. I think that my noble friend will recognise the complexity of the law in this area.

We recognise that there are some people who acquired citizenship through a grandfather and others who could not do so through a grandmother. However, where families have maintained a close and ongoing connection with the UK, those grandchildren could have acquired British citizenship through another route, such as registration or naturalisation based on a period of residence here. Those whose parents have never lived in the UK and have not established their own connections here are likely to have the citizenship of the country of their birth or residence.

I know that this will be disappointing to my noble friend but I cannot accept his amendment. However, I thank him for bringing it forward and for giving me an opportunity to explain the Government’s position.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I recognise the Minister’s phrase about not being able to rectify all the wrongs of history but I do not agree with that expression. I think that we ought to remedy the wrongs of history and this would have been an excellent opportunity to do so in the case of what I think my noble friend acknowledges would be a very small number of people. However, I also recognise the realities of the situation—that, unlike the two previous amendments on which there were Divisions, I would not be so successful if I were to seek the opinion of the House.

Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment but, first, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for what he said about the amendment to enable illegitimate children born before 1983 to acquire British citizenship in circumstances where they would already have been able to do so if they had been legitimate. I hope that in our final draft, following the previous two, which the Minister mentioned, we will give the Secretary of State discretion to waive requirements that may be imposed on a parent in the event of the parent being unco-operative or no longer able to fulfil the requirement by reason of incapacity or death. I am also concerned that in the final draft we should avoid any ambiguity between registration and consular registration and avoid imposing any consular registration requirements which the parents of an illegitimate child might not have met, bearing in mind the stigma attached to illegitimacy in those days.

When my noble friend comes to produce the third draft at Third Reading, I should be most grateful if those points could be borne in mind. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, I hope I will be forgiven for returning to a point that we discussed in Committee, on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has tabled a number of amendments that deal with the position of women and children. My noble friend referred to the undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee concerning the facilities at Heathrow. That is not the subject of a particular amendment, but I am aware of delays that have occurred in implementing the improvements at the short-term holding facilities, particularly at terminal 4, which are the worst in the whole airport.

In view of that fact, will my noble friend take this opportunity to give us an update on where we have got to? None of the facilities has any showers for the children and families who are detained in them. The shortage of accommodation is acute and the facilities have been thoroughly condemned by the independent monitoring board that deals with Heathrow. It would be helpful if the Minister, when he comes to reply, would give us an update on where we have got to on the improvement of those facilities.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the Bill gives legislative effect to our current policies on family returns by putting key elements of the new process into primary legislation. Noble Lords have spoken of the Government’s record and our policies towards children, and mentioned them in favourable terms. I think it is a shared opinion across this House that we take policies towards children seriously. I hope to demonstrate that we are doing that in the passage of this Bill.

Amendments 4 and 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would narrow the definition of a family return case. It is important that families where children are being looked after by someone other than the parents, such as an older sibling in some cases, a grandparent or another adult member of their extended family, are included in the family returns process so that their cases can be resolved together and so that they benefit from the intensive support provided by the new process. Under our definition of “family”, a parent must be living with their children to benefit from the family returns process. That is a reasonable definition. Other than in exceptional cases, where common sense would prevail, if a parent is living apart from the child they may be removed separately.

With regards to Amendment 5, and separating children from their parents, I assure noble Lords that we will always seek to ensure that families remain together during their return. I am sympathetic to the amendment, but there are exceptional cases. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, I think, to the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness in previous debates on the Bill. Splitting families would never be done for tactical reasons to achieve compliance. However, in exceptional circumstances, we may need to remove an adult family member separately, even during the 28-day grace period which Clause 2 will establish. This may be, for example, where there is a public protection concern or a risk to national security.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked what the criminality threshold is over which we might separate families. He wanted a stronger definition than perhaps my words just now have offered, but there can be no fixed threshold. Each case will be considered on its merits, based on an assessment of whether an adult poses a threat of offending that cannot be satisfactorily managed without removal. That is the only fair answer that I can give the noble Lord.

Amendment 8 seeks to ensure that children are detained only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. That is already, as noble Lords will know, government policy. Clause 5 will, in effect, ensure that detention is for the shortest possible time, while reflecting the operational reality that, in very exceptional circumstances, unaccompanied children may need to be held for short periods in transit to a port of departure or at the port awaiting departure. If we do not hold children safely while they are coming in and out of the UK unaccompanied, we increase the risk that they may fall prey to traffickers or, indeed, abscond.

Later this afternoon, we will be considering an amendment concerning children tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to which I have added my name. I mention this because it is important to consider our approach to children in the Bill in the round. That amendment will confirm that the important statutory duty towards children in immigration decisions applies to every matter in the Bill. It will of course apply to this part of the Bill, further underlining that when families and children are being returned, we must have regard to those children’s best interests.

I will address the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, whose help on this matter and on the Bill in general has been very positive.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

Will the Minister deal with the question that I asked about the directions that the tribunal would formerly have been able to give regarding the restoration of citizenship and its backdating in cases where that was appropriate? Since the tribunal has lost its power, those directions can no longer be given.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I think that I will have to write to my noble friend if he wants an authoritative on answer on that. I have given the answer that I have before me, but if that does not meet the point that he has made—it is clear that it does not—I hope that my noble friend will allow me to write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate my noble friend’s amendment because it provides me with the opportunity to reassure noble Lords that the safeguards we highlighted when we debated Clause 3 in terms of the Home Office’s process and policy, common law and case law protections and, indeed, judicial oversight are in place when immigration bail applications are considered by SIAC. The power to detain under immigration powers flows from the Immigration Act 1971, and the consideration of whether detention remains lawful is governed by exactly the same legal principles. It is simply the venue that is different: SIAC, instead of the immigration tribunal. SIAC has its own procedure rules, separate from the tribunal procedure rules, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 requires SIAC’s rules to mirror those of the tribunal in how repeat bail applications made within 28 days should be handled in cases where there has not been a material change in circumstances. My noble friend’s Amendment 84A would remove the requirement for SIAC to dispose of repeat applications made on the same facts within 28 days without a hearing. That would create disparity between how different tribunals are required to handle the same matter.

As will be the case in the immigration tribunal, if a further bail application is made within 28 days of a previous unsuccessful bail application, SIAC can agree to an oral hearing, provided that there are genuine reasons to seek another hearing because there are materially different grounds to consider which may lead to a different outcome.

As I have said, safeguards are already in place. Clause 3 does not prevent an individual from applying for bail. Nor does it prevent an individual from challenging the legality of their detention, and legal aid will remain available for that. The Home Office will continue to conduct formal reviews of detention, and detainees will continue to have full access to legal advice.

I have been asked how many times the existing power has been used. The existing power has not been used for some time, so the Government have no statistics on its use. It is drafted so broadly that its meaning is, arguably, unclear. The government amendment is clear about the circumstances in which the power can be exercised and is proportionate. Therefore, it is more workable.

My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about judicial review and habeas corpus and their relationship with SIAC. He suggested that they were not adequate in SIAC. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the position in SIAC differs from the position in the tribunal. SIAC is a superior court of record, whereas the tribunal, which considers most bail applications, is not. In SIAC bail applications, SIAC does consider the lawfulness of detention, and detainees do not have to apply for JR or habeas corpus, although those options remain open to them should they wish to do so.

I hope that I have covered the salient points made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I understand that my noble friend’s amendment was probing. I therefore hope that my comments have reassured the noble Lords that there is no difference in the policy, procedural or judicial protections that those detained under immigration powers enjoy even if the case is under SIAC’s jurisdiction rather than that of the immigration tribunal. I therefore ask that my noble friend withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I understood on good legal advice that the principles in Chahal did read across to SIAC but in view of what my noble friend has said about that, I shall go back to my advisers and see whether they have any further comments on what he has said.

Perhaps I may make an aside about this amendment and others that we have dealt with today. It is very inconvenient, when looking up the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act or any other Acts to which amendments are being made by the Bill, to find at the head of each page in the version that we can see online that it cannot be guaranteed that all the amendments which have been made to that Act have been incorporated. This is a serious disadvantage because it means that we always have to go back to the Library, which has access to another database that contains the full Keeling schedules of Acts that have been amended. Normally, people using the parliamentary website cannot see that database and that causes some considerable inconvenience. I would be grateful if my noble friend could address that point at some stage in the future. I do not ask him to give me a reply now but this is a general disadvantage to people who are trying to work on these Bills which work by reference to other legislation. However, with those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot give the noble Baroness an absolute answer to that question. Of course one of the reasons why the rollout is important is that we need to check to see if there are any adverse implications in this policy.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister a question about asylum seekers and persons appealing against a refusal of asylum who are occupying rooms in private houses? It has been said that there are quite a few people doing this, notwithstanding the fact that accommodation is normally provided for them under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Can my noble friend elucidate what provisions are being made for documents to be produced by those who are occupying rooms in private houses because they are not covered by the provisions of Schedule 3, to which he has referred? They deal only with the accommodation that is provided to most asylum seekers under the 1999 Act when they cannot afford to pay for accommodation of their own. However, there is still an important residual group of people who find space in private houses. They will need documentary proof that they are allowed to live in those houses and thus ensure that landlords are not breaching the conditions by taking them in.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I have made it clear that for people who have asylum seeker status, where it is not safe for them to return and therefore they may be failed asylum seekers, the Home Office will provide the necessary documentation to show that they have a right to accommodation even though their status may well be that of failed asylum seekers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is helpful that we have had this debate; I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has moved the amendment. As he said, it was originally designed to supplement his amendment relating to students. I think that we have got a good story to tell in connection with students. If I may, however, I shall deal with the particular amendment, Amendment 58.

The noble Lord is right that the provision is not immediately transparent; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has challenged me on this point, too. I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, may have been in respect of the exclusion of certain expensive discretionary treatments from the free access afforded by having paid the surcharge—I think that that was his concern. I said on Monday, and I am happy to repeat today, that no such exclusions will apply when the surcharge is introduced, and none is planned for the future either. We intend that the payment of the surcharge will provide the same access to health services as is available to a permanent resident.

I turn to the penetrating critique from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, felt that a degree of ambiguity lay within the clause, so perhaps I may explain why Clause 33(3)(b) states that,

“different amounts may be specified for different purposes”.

The answer is that it allows regulations to specify different amounts of surcharge for different categories of migrants—currently, there are only two amounts: the £200 rate and the £150 rate—without which we would not be able to give the discount to students, which is one of the elements of the Bill. We need this capacity to do so. We do not have it in mind that there will be other categories, but this is the way in which the discount for students is facilitated by the legislation. It does not refer to NHS charging in the legislation.

Perhaps I may refer to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, because we have a very different health system here from that in the USA and in Australia which requires a different solution. Health insurance requirements would be expensive and compromise our own competitive position in the international market for students and for workers, which is not what we want the Bill to do. Most EU countries do not enforce the Schengen visa health insurance requirement at their borders. A student applying to Harvard in the USA, for example—my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby referred to Harvard and its great pull as a centre of learning for overseas students—has to pay a fee of $958 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s more comprehensive health insurance plan, which is comparable to what the £150 rate gives access to, would cost a further $2,190 per year. That gives some measure of what is involved. We have already committed to this discount for students—that is what this clause is about—in recognition of their contribution to the UK, reinforcing, I hope, arguments that I am trying to make at regular intervals in our debates. They will pay just £150 instead of £200, which is 1% of the cost of coming to study in the UK and exceptional value for money, as I am sure noble Lords will agree.

Why does the Bill allow surcharge payers to be charged for further treatments? So that noble Lords are clear, I should clarify that the Bill does not prevent the exclusion of certain expensive, discretionary treatments from the free access. However, we have made it clear that we intend that no such exclusions will apply when the surcharge is introduced. The Department of Health has been clear that it will consider these in future only in the event of exceptional and compelling specific justification for health purposes; and any changes would need to be put before Parliament in the form of revised NHS charging regulations. One might say that this is for treatments which may in future emerge where it is considered that the health service quite properly should charge not just migrants but members of the UK population.

My noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether there was a problem with the drafting of Clause 33(4). The drafting purpose of Clause 33(4) is to provide a clear link in the Bill to health treatment. Without it, the clause would give an unlimited power to charge for any purpose, which is the intention neither of the clause nor of that particular subsection of it. I note what noble Lords have said about the wording of the subsection. It has been carefully drafted, but if I can provide noble Lords with an explanation of line-by-line implications, I shall do my best to do so before we get to Report. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

Where the Bill uses the words,

“likely to be available free of charge”,

in Clause 33(4), it anticipates the possibility that the Minister mentions—that while we do not intend to charge anybody at the outset of the operation of the Bill for services of particular cost, we have it in mind to do so in the future. That would apply to students and to short-term migrants as well.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I made it clear that the wording is designed to enable the health service, if it feels that particular treatments should be charged for, to do so. There is no intention to do so at present, but it is important that the Bill makes it clear that this is a facility which the health service wishes to reserve for itself. I think that it is quite proper for it to do so, but there is no intention on the introduction of the health charge for there to be any additional fees for additional treatments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, when the noble Lord is replying on that point, will he deal with story of the 300 maternity patients who were alleged to have been treated at St Thomas’s hospital? When we last discussed this, the allegation was found to have been apocryphal. I would be grateful if the Minister would repudiate it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would not wish to get involved in hearsay or gossip or, indeed, the suggestion that some of this stuff is just newspaper chat. I will get back to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with a reasoned reply explaining the Government’s analysis of the situation. However, the purpose of this measure is not to do with health tourism at all; it is to do with providing a charge whereby people who stay here for more than six months make a contribution to the NHS. It will make it more difficult for people who are not entitled to access healthcare to do so, but that is a secondary purpose.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I suppose that at any boundary point, there are bound to be these sorts of situations occurring. The post-doctoral leave to remain would be in addition, perhaps, to a university degree. There would be an additional application, so indeed it would be allowable because they would not be permanently resident here in the UK. That is a correct analysis of the situation and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is absolutely right in pointing that out.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I hesitate to add to the interruptions that the Minister has already suffered, but I think I can understand what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was getting at. Clause 33(4) states:

“In specifying the amount of a charge under subsection (3)(b) the Secretary of State must … have regard to the range of health services that are likely to be available free of charge to persons who have been given immigration permission”.

That implies that not all health services will be available to that person, but the noble Lord has insisted that such persons will be treated on the same basis as a native of this country in accessing the health service. Why do we need subsection (4), which implies that there are other services which the health service provides that are not covered by the surcharge?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thought that I had made that clear in answer to an earlier question, and I am just trying to find my notes on that matter. When the Bill is initially implemented, it is our clear policy intention that there will be no further charges for treatment. The provision in the Bill is there for this particular period, but we will clarify the position on implementation. The policy position is that there will be no further charge. That is not on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly points out, but I am giving him the policy position from the Dispatch Box. I hope that that reassures him and my noble friend on that point.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I appreciate the concerns of my noble friend Lord Avebury, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the concerns of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. They have caused my noble friend to table the amendment, and caused us to debate not just the rules but the provision of facilities.

I start by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that in the past year the Home Office has been in acute dialogue with Heathrow Airport Ltd about the Heathrow Airport facility to progress accommodation units. That is now bearing fruit. My noble friend Lord Avebury asked me if I could place information on the design of these facilities in the Library. I understand that HAL, the Border Force and, for that matter, the Home Office are in final discussions on the detailed design stage and, indeed, are going out to contractors for quotes in March of this year—that is, now. If that is the situation, I am sure that I will be in a position to satisfy my noble friend’s request to place a copy of the design in the House Library, and I will seek to do that for him.

I am aware that there has also been a lack of legislative framework governing the operation of the short-term holding facilities. As has been pointed out by noble Lords, this has been a matter of concern for years to a number of interested parties, including Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, who has responsibility for inspecting the UK’s detention facilities. The delay in introducing these rules is regretted, but it has been a case of unavoidable delay being caused by a number of different reasons, including, most recently, the discussions surrounding the legislative framework that should apply to Cedars, which we have just discussed, which initially had been classified as a short-term holding facility and, as such, would have been covered by these rules. We have just debated those amendments. Accordingly, today, I give my noble friend a commitment that separate sets of rules governing the management and operation of short-term holding facilities and the Cedars pre-departure accommodation will be introduced before the Summer Recess. With that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

It remains only for me to thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their powerful support for this amendment. I also thank the Minister not only for the very welcome reply that he has given to this debate but for the close attention that he has paid to the correspondence that we have had over the past few months, particularly on the facilities at Heathrow. I am delighted to hear him give the assurance that we will have separate sets of rules for the short-term holding facilities and the pre-departure accommodation within a shorter space of time than I asked for in the amendment. It is rather an unusual experience to have a Minister grant something better than that for which the amendment asks—I think it is probably unique in my 52 years in one House or the other. I can only say how grateful I am to my noble friend and how much we look forward to the implementation of his kind undertakings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[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.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, when we debated this issue on 4 December, we agreed that, because smoking is largely an addiction taken up during childhood or adolescence, reducing the availability of tobacco to young people is important if we are to succeed in reducing overall smoking uptake. This new clause seeks to create a new criminal offence of an adult purchasing, or attempting to purchase, tobacco products on behalf of a child or young person under the age of 18. This act is commonly known by the phrase, “proxy purchasing”.

While smoking prevalence among young people has declined considerably in recent years, there are still each year around 300,000 young people in England under the age of 16 who try smoking for the first time. As a starting point, we must continue to take action to encourage adults to quit smoking. If smoking is seen by young people as a normal part of everyday life, they are much more likely to become smokers themselves. The Government’s Tobacco Control Plan for England is clear that, to promote health and well-being, we will work to encourage communities to reshape social norms, so that tobacco becomes less desirable, less acceptable and less accessible. We aim to stop the perpetuation of smoking from one generation to the next.

We need to think carefully about whether creating a proxy purchase offence would have an impact on how accessible tobacco is to children and young people, and whether it would have a meaningful impact on reducing smoking rates among young people. Obtaining cigarettes from retailers is just one of many avenues by which young people access tobacco. We know that children and young people obtain their cigarettes from a wide range of sources. Some young people take tobacco from their parents, from other family members or from older friends. In such circumstances, no proxy purchase has occurred. Introducing a new proxy purchase offence would not tackle that particular way of getting tobacco.

I understand that introducing a proxy purchase offence for tobacco is supported by some retailer organisations, including the Association of Convenience Stores and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. Let me be clear that I recognise the important role played by retailers in ensuring that tobacco products are sold in accordance with the existing age-of-sale legislation. I also want to recognise the important work that retailer organisations have played in recent years to support their members in meeting age-of-sale requirements.

I realise the difficulties that some retailers face, and I understand why some feel that it should be an offence to buy tobacco on behalf of under-18s. I also understand that the creation of a proxy purchasing offence has the support of the tobacco industry—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the creation of effective and practicable legislation should be informed by evidence. In the area of proxy purchasing, the Government’s current view is that we want to see evidence that a proxy purchase offence would be effective both in reducing young people’s access to tobacco and in having a deterrent effect on those adults who are prepared to buy cigarettes on behalf of children and young people.

In fact, I am concerned that some of the evidence that is currently available suggests that creating a proxy purchasing offence would have only limited benefit. For example, a Scottish study published in August 2013 looked at how young Scottish smokers living in disadvantaged communities obtained their cigarettes. The study concluded that the introduction of a proxy purchasing offence in Scotland had had little discernible impact.

Nevertheless, that is not to say that evidence does not exist, and I encourage those who support this amendment to provide evidence of the likely public health benefits of creating a proxy purchasing offence to the Department of Health for further consideration. Proxy purchasing of tobacco is an area that the Department of Health is keeping under review, and any further evidence that is provided will be carefully considered. I assure noble Lords that I will draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Howe to the debate we are having on the subject this afternoon.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, those in support of a proxy purchase offence point to Scotland, where the offence was introduced in April 2011. While I understand that a light-touch approach has been taken on enforcement and that the legislation has been in place only for a few years, I note that only one fixed penalty notice has been imposed since the offence was introduced, and that there have been no convictions. Furthermore, whether the legislation has had any deterrent effect is also not clear.

The statistics for the similar offence of the proxy purchase of alcohol show that convictions are few and far between in that area, too, in no small part because of the burden of proof required. Furthermore, the alcohol offence includes a defence that the purchaser had no reason to suspect that the individual they bought the alcohol for was under 18. This amendment does not address that point.

Whether local authorities want the creation of a proxy purchasing offence is not at all clear at the moment. After all, they rather than the police would be responsible for enforcement. The Minister responsible for public health made it clear during a debate on this issue in the House of Commons in October that the Government would be happy to hear the views of local authorities on the potential for effective enforcement, or to hear of good examples of existing local measures to reduce access to tobacco by young people. I also call on those in the public health community to provide this sort of evidence for the creation of a proxy purchasing offence. I want to be clear that we are not rejecting the creation of a proxy purchasing offence outright, but we need to give the matter further consideration.

While we understand the views of retailers and the tobacco industry on proxy purchasing, the Department of Health will continue to work with local authorities and the public health community to understand their views. I want to reassure your Lordships that the Department of Health will also keep under review relevant evidence and experience from elsewhere. I again encourage those with evidence to make it available; I cannot reiterate that enough.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, if the evidence is supplied, how will the Government deal with it? If we do not agree the amendment, the Minister would have to wait until further primary legislation was brought forward. Would the Government consider implementing a clause of this kind by order rather than placing it in the Bill?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I can answer that best by saying that if the evidence were provided and the Government were persuaded that creating this offence was a practical and effective way of dealing with a policy issue that I am sure all noble Lords in the Chamber agree with, they would wish to see it introduced through primary legislation. However, I am not in a position to be definitive in my answer, and I think that my noble friend will understand the reasons for that. I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to reducing the availability of tobacco to children and young people. However, our actions must be guided by evidence and effectiveness. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

EU: Free Movement of Labour

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The principle is important but it is the practical that I have been trying to address. I have not read the UCL report but I have noticed the media comments on it and the key findings. I reiterate that what matters now is that we take steps, through our policy on access to benefits and public services, to reduce the incentives for abuse and to prevent this problem from growing.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, has my noble friend noticed the Ipsos MORI survey which shows that the level of abuse of free-movement rights is far less than Mrs May seems to imagine?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have not noted that particular report. I am concerned that we are experiencing a pull factor in this country, and that is something that we need to address if we are going to get a proper balance between migrants who are coming here to support the British economy and those who, through other purposes, are seeking to abuse our systems.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The Home Office works closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is fair to say that we are engaged, as we are on all measures, in discussing every aspect of government where we share interests in common. I do not want to go into detail on the Floor of the House, but I certainly will write to the noble Lord in this regard.

A number of views were expressed about eviction. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Faulks, expressed concern about the strength of the powers to evict persons convicted of a related offence. As we saw in 2011, those who riot and trash communities can take away people’s livelihoods and homes. Although the law currently enables the landlord to seek to evict those who riot in the locality of their home, it does not capture the sort of riot tourism that we saw in 2011. The Bill puts that right. It will allow for landlords to apply to evict tenants where they or members of the household have been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot anywhere in the United Kingdom where the behaviour takes place. That unashamedly sends out a strong message that rioting will not be tolerated and may carry housing consequences wherever it occurs.

However, I reassure noble Lords that we expect landlords to seek to evict in those circumstances only exceptionally and, where they do, important safeguards will be in place. In particular, the court needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis that it is reasonable to grant possession. The impact on the whole household and any young children is likely to be a relevant factor. Existing eviction powers make it clear that tenants are responsible for the anti-social behaviour of members of their household. This provision follows that well established principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, my noble friend Lord Redesdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, gave us the benefit of their views on the dog measures in the Bill. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will assist front-line professionals in tackling dangerous dogs, not only once an attack has occurred but to prevent such attacks. There have been calls for dog control notices today, echoing those from animal welfare organisations. The rather bright tie that I am wearing is a Dogs Trust tie; I thought that it would be appropriate to wear it today. The work of such organisations is vital to improve responsible dog ownership through education and providing support for those unable to look after their pets.

However, I do not agree that a bespoke dog control notice is needed. The Bill contains a number of anti-social behaviour powers which can be used in exactly the same way as a dog control notice. The community protection notice, for example, can be used to require a dog owner to have their dog neutered, to keep it muzzled, to keep it on a lead in a public place and to attend dog training classes. The draft practitioners’ manual explains that comprehensively. To provide for another class of notice that does exactly the same thing as existing provisions in the Bill would undermine one of our key objectives, welcomed by practitioners, which is to streamline the existing, complex mix of overlapping powers.

It was helpful to hear from my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Hussain and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about forced marriage. We know that the introduction of legislation is not of itself enough. The Government’s Forced Marriage Unit provides direct assistance to victims. It also undertakes a full programme of outreach activities to front-line practitioners and communities to ensure that people working with victims are fully informed as to how to approach such cases. Overseas, the unit also provides consular assistance for victims to secure their return to the UK, but I look forward to debating that at later stages in the Bill’s progress.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also raised the clauses dealing with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, generally welcoming them. I will write to her on the impact of those orders in the way that she described.

Concern was expressed about PCCs commissioning victim services and whether that would lead to some services not being delivered as they have been. My noble friend Lord Dholakia mentioned that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was concerned about the impact on rape counselling. Although it makes sense for support for victims of such crimes, which have high impact but are low in volume, such as homicide, rape and human trafficking, to be commissioned centrally, the majority of victim services are best commissioned locally. That is how this issue will be divided. Police and crime commissioners are best placed to decide on the sort of issues that are needed within their communities. Major crimes will still be addressed through national funding.

PCCs will be able to respond to local needs and ensure the best use of funding. In his evidence to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of Victim Support, agreed that the move to local commissioning of victims’ services provided an opportunity for better integration of local services in support of victims. We agree. That is why we are legislating to ensure that PCCs have clear powers. I welcome the support of my noble friend Lady Newlove for these provisions.

There has been widespread support for the Police Remuneration Review Body. It is good to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond referred to the new policies for determining police pay. The Police Remuneration Review Body will deliver pay and conditions that are fair not only for police officers but for the public as well. The move to an independent evidence-based method of determining police pay and conditions is the right way forward. The current negotiating system is time-consuming, inefficient and adversarial. I can, however, assure my noble friend Lady Harris that police officers will continue to have a voice in determining their pay, as their representatives will have the opportunity to inform the annual remit letter, which will be provided by the Home Secretary and sets out issues for the body’s consideration. They will also present evidence to the new body in the same way as any other interested parties along with the Government and police and crime commissioners.

My noble friend Lady Harris asked about the applications of these provisions to Northern Ireland. Policing, as noble Lords will know, is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. This provision was introduced with the full support of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland. However, this is an important change for Northern Ireland. The Department of Justice has consulted policing organisations, including representatives of police officers in Northern Ireland—those who, between them, are responsible for maintaining the police service in Northern Ireland—to ensure that they have a full opportunity to feed in their views. The Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland is considering those views and will respond in due course. I might say, while we are talking about police matters, that I greatly valued the observations of my noble friend Lord Wasserman.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends, Lady Berridge, Lord Faulks, Lord Dholakia, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the changes we are making to the powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. I welcome the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that,

“the Government has clearly made out a case for a without suspicion power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports”.

I also welcome the committee’s support for the amendments to the Schedule 7 powers we have made in the Bill. These are important changes, including a reduction in the maximum period of detention by a third.

The difference between the Government and the Joint Committee is whether the changes in the Bill to Schedule 7 go far enough. In particular, there are some who would continue to argue that the provisions in Schedule 7 are disproportionate and at odds with the convention rights and that these modifications are insufficient to cure that. Given the continuing threat we face from terrorism, the Government profoundly disagree. This is not simply the view of the Government, the police and the intelligence agencies. I refer the House to the judgment of the High Court in proceedings brought by an individual examined under Schedule 7 earlier this year. In that judgment, the court said that,

“we have concluded that the Schedule 7 powers of examination survive the challenges advanced before us. In short, the balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question”.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with that as we debate this issue. I should add that it is our aim to respond to the JCHR’s report before we enter Committee.

[Lord Avebury]

Does my noble friend agree that, during the whole period when these powers have been in operation, not one single case has been unearthed by stop and search at the airports or seaports of an individual who has been engaged in acts of terrorism, other than those who were known to the police before they were stopped?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The use of these powers is part of our general drive to ensure that we repress terrorism in this country. The exact way in which those powers are used is not really a matter that I would want to discuss on the Floor of the House at this stage. I can reassure the noble Lord that these powers are an important part of our war against terrorism, in this country and elsewhere.

There have been a lot of comments on the compensation for miscarriages of justice. The provisions in the Bill in respect of compensation were raised by a number of noble and learned Lords. It has been good to hear the Rolls-Royce minds of lawyers at work. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, the concept of a miscarriage of justice is not a simple one. Over the years, that has been left open to interpretation by the courts. This has resulted in a lack of clarity for applicants, leaving Governments susceptible to frequent unsuccessful legal challenges and their associated financial implications, with the taxpayer footing the bill. The amendment to current legislation will ensure that compensation is paid in cases where the new fact on which the applicants’ conviction was overturned shows them to have been innocent of the offence. This is a clear, open and transparent test, and one that was successfully operated between 2008 and 2011. That being the case, we are satisfied that it is a perfectly proper test to enshrine in statute. I welcome the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in this matter.

I have run out of time. I have been prompted that I have spoken too long and that it is late, but I am grateful to noble Lords for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they have conducted the debate this evening. There are many areas where we can agree on the Bill. It makes a positive contribution in improvements to protect the public and further modernise the police. It is clear that there are areas where there is further debate to be had as we move into Committee. I hope that we will be able to meet and discuss those. I will certainly be writing to a number of noble Lords. However, I hope that in my closing remarks I have been able to deal with some of the issues raised by noble Lords during the debate. I am sure we will return to many of those issues. In the mean time, I commend the Bill to the House.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 24th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I know of the noble Baroness’s interests in this issue and the diligence with which she pursues them, but perhaps I can refute her suggestion that these matters are taken without proper due care and diligence by the Government. Perhaps I can illustrate that best by saying that in 2009 there were 98 enforced removals to that country; in 2012, the number was down to 14; in the first quarter of this year, it was one; and in the second quarter it was also one.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept what the DRC ambassador told me—that,

“deportees are interrogated on arrival … to allow the Congolese justice system to clarify their situation”?

Does he therefore accept that although we do not routinely investigate or monitor the treatment of returnees, the evidence collected in the report that was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—of the pattern of interrogation, arrest and ill treatment of refused asylum seekers—is strong enough to warrant an independent investigation of the treatment of these returnees? Can my noble friend say what it will take to get a country removed from the list of safe countries?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend for making sure that I had seen a copy of Catherine Ramos’ report; in fact I had been briefed on the report, and the Home Office is taking it seriously. This report is being considered in detail, just as we considered the first one in the series. It was published at the beginning of this month. The initial view, considered against other evidence, including the information that we have from other European countries, is that it will not warrant a change in our returns policy.

Alcohol: Late Night Drinking

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they will take to curb the late night purchasing and consumption of alcohol.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have given local people greater powers to tackle problem drinking late at night. I am pleased to say that Newcastle is scheduled to be the first area to introduce a late night levy on 1 November. This will make premises selling alcohol late at night contribute to the cost of policing. A number of other areas are also considering banning the sale of alcohol in the early hours of the morning.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that since only two late night levies—and no early morning restriction orders—have been imposed since they were enacted two years ago, these measures should be more closely targeted on areas and premises that cause the problems, particularly areas of cumulative impact? Secondly, will my noble friend explain how the Government’s current licensing proposals are going to reduce or curb the number of licences issued, particularly in areas of cumulative impact, bearing in mind that the number of licences issued has been increasing every year since 2003?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the cumulative effect of the measures we have introduced enables licensing authorities to target problem premises and areas; for example, we have reduced the evidential threshold, given licensing authorities the power to make representations in their own right, and clarified cumulative impact policies that can apply now to the on and off trade alike.

Licensing Act 2003

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There may be particularly vulnerable people, of course, and old people are among them. One of the things that we have done with the existing licensing laws is to rebalance the Licensing Act so that there is a vicinity test; as long as evidence exists within a local community concerning the disruption that can be caused by late-night drinking, it is able to submit this to the licensing authorities. I can give the noble Viscount more encouragement: Milton Keynes has also voted in favour of a late-night levy, which is likely to come in next year. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will also encourage the noble Viscount it is making its way through the Commons and will shortly arrive here, and will greatly empower communities in this regard.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s alcohol strategy puts the cost of alcohol harm to the economy as a whole at £21 billion. That includes £3.5 billion for the health service, where overstressed A&E departments, for example, have to cope with an influx of people after midnight who have drunk far too much. Has my noble friend any estimate of the benefits, in terms of reduced costs, of the Government repealing the 2003 Act altogether?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, that calculation has not been made, but I can give my noble friend the figure for the cost to the health service: £7.3 billion for alcohol-related incidents.

Alcohol: Minimum Pricing

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This is just the sort of evidence being evaluated by the Government. I accept that we also have the Scottish experience whereby the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation on this issue. That is subject to a court appeal but we are taking note of what is going on elsewhere.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am sure that the Government have looked at the evidence produced by the Institute of Alcohol Studies which shows that a 50p minimum unit price would reduce deaths per year by 3,000, hospital admissions by 98,000 and crime incidents by 40,000. Have the Government made any estimate of the savings to the public purse that that reduction would produce?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The cost of alcohol to society is estimated at £21 billion, £11 billion of which is due to alcohol-related crime. These figures are part and parcel of the consideration the Government are giving to the issue.

Visas

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, since the Secretary of State rightly disbanded the UKBA, what steps has she taken to address the dysfunctionality, not only in terms of immigration visas for visitors but throughout the whole system, to ensure that the immigration service universally provides an adequate service to people entering the United Kingdom?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is in Liverpool today addressing former UK Border Agency staff, and I have given a pretty clear indication that we want to make sure that, in future, this service reflects the needs of the customer.

Asylum Seekers: Support

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 24th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that I can reassure the right reverend Prelate. There is an ongoing review of our approach to asylum support, which I expect to be concluded by the end of the financial year. That review will take into account the views of partners, including any recommendations set out in the report of the Children’s Society inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, due to be published next week, I believe.

I put on record my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for his involvement in the production of the report. As noble Lords might assume, any changes to the arrangements will be reported to Parliament.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Children. Is my noble friend aware that it is unreasonable and unfair not to uprate the benefits paid to asylum seekers in common with all other recipients of benefit? With respect to Section 4 support, how much is saved by having a different regime for those people compared to those on Section 95 support? Would it not be better if every asylum seeker was on the same level of benefit, to avoid driving those on Section 4 support into destitution, as has happened?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend makes a very good point. In the briefing that I had before answering this Question, I was surprised to discover that there were two levels of benefit. It is important to emphasise what I said in answer to the right reverend Prelate’s supplementary question: a review is going on and we should await that to see what recommendations it makes. It must be important to take on board the point that my noble friend makes.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the renewed support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. What they have said demonstrates that there is still serious concern across the Floor of the House with regard to both these amendments, particularly in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the rights of the child, which are being jeopardised by the current system. There is a serious question as to whether the system we have now is compatible with our signature to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, both that and concerns about the right of appeal only from abroad may have to wait for further consideration in another place, where I hope that these issues will be picked up. I honestly do not think that my noble friend, although he has tried hard, has given us satisfactory answers to many of the points that have been raised. I mention in particular whether the Home Office has a policy of lying in wait. I cited the detailed evidence which has been—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry but I did make it patently clear that there is no policy of waiting for people to leave the country before taking these proceedings. That is a matter of fact. I did answer the question.

[Lord Avebury]

I know that my noble friend said that, but he did not respond to the point I made about the evidence which has been provided for us by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. It says that in many cases the notice is served the day after a person has left the country and that the policy was acknowledged by a senior UKBA official when the matter was addressed at the ILPA AGM in front of 100 people in November 2010. My noble friend did not deny that that evidence existed, nor did he attempt to refute it. If he had said that in the cases where a person’s presence was deemed to be “non-conducive to the public good” the Home Office would not wait until somebody went abroad for a short period, I would have been far happier. The case that he described—where someone is known to be departing from the United Kingdom with the intention of plotting with like-minded individuals abroad to commit or plan further offences against our laws—is, again, hypothetical, but the existence of the suspicions could have enabled the Secretary of State to serve that person with a notice before he left the country. Therefore, there was an element of premeditation in the way that the Secretary of State exercised her powers in the particular case that my noble friend described.

I do not think that we are going to get any further with this matter this afternoon. I shall have to leave it for our colleagues in another place to renew the discussions on both these amendments, as I hope they will. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

Will my noble friend deal with the point I made? The exercise of the right of appeal is not only for the purpose of getting the decision reversed but to prevent there being a blot on a person’s record, which may seriously hinder their future ability to travel anywhere?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not accept that at all. If someone’s application to visit this country is refused, then I regret to say that it must be because either they have failed to fill in the application correctly or there are substantial reasons why they should not be allowed to make that visit. I cannot accept the premise of my noble friend’s argument.

The Government are not persuaded by the case for my noble friend’s Amendment 118A. To accept it would introduce a right of appeal for people who have, for example, practised criminal or other dishonest behaviour, while those who have acted honestly would not have an appeal. It cannot be right that that type of behaviour is rewarded.

Regardless of whether an application is refused, relying on a general ground of refusal, the applicant is free to re-apply setting out why the previous refusal was unjustified. All refusals on general grounds are authorised or reviewed by entry clearance managers before being served. If refused under general grounds, it is also open for an applicant to make a fresh application by providing new evidence which an entry clearance officer will take into account. A refusal under paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules may also be challenged by a judicial review. Prior to making decisions, all entry clearance officers have to pass a three-week training course, part of which focuses on making decisions using paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules. There is also an e-learning package specifically relating to the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 320 that may lead to an applicant’s future applications being automatically banned. This package is completed by entry clearance officers during their induction training on arrival at their decision-making post.

I think I have demonstrated that the process is thorough and that there will be considerable advantage to the efficiency of the system and, indeed, to applicants themselves if the Government’s proposals are approved. I trust that I have been able to satisfy my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, the crux of the matter is that the Minister suggests that credible evidence exists for the Home Secretary to have made this decision that the person has been involved in serious criminality, terrorism and so on. The Secretary of State waits until the person goes abroad for some reason, whether it be for compassionate reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has suggested, or for any other reason, and then pounces—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I realise we are on Report, but I will just say to the noble Lord that it may be that the conduct that leads to the Home Secretary making this decision takes place while this individual is abroad. I think the notion that this is a premeditated trap is false. It is more to do with the possibility that the individual, while abroad, makes contact with someone, or evidence comes to light as to their true intent, or what they might do when they return to this country becomes apparent, and the Home Secretary wishes to deal with the problem.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I cannot promise my noble friend that the Government can be ahead on these issues but I am grateful for the opportunity to debate his amendments. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the Government keep the workings of the asylum process under review. Indeed, it would be wrong not to do so.

Amendment 113D would create a right of appeal whenever someone is refused asylum and granted any form of leave. As a result there would be more appeals against a refusal of asylum for a group of cases where no immediate right currently exists, and multiple appeals from individuals.

As my noble friend Lord Henley acknowledged in Committee, it is an unfortunate consequence of the otherwise very sensible 12-month restriction that some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will experience delay in bringing an asylum appeal. My noble friend agreed to review the policy in respect of children to ensure that there were no unintendezd consequences. We have completed that review and concluded that this policy, seen in the context of the statutory appeals framework and current economic circumstances, operates as intended. As my noble friend has said, I have written to him to confirm this.

This amendment is to Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that an individual may appeal against an asylum refusal when leave is granted for a period longer than 12 months. Amendment 113D would remove the 12-month restriction and create a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum regardless of the period of leave granted. It is not unusual for short periods of leave to be extended more than once. Recent case law means that this amendment could create a right of appeal against the earlier refusal of asylum every time further leave was granted. Therefore, this amendment would have serious and undesirable consequences for the existing appeals framework as it could result in multiple fruitless appeals being used to prolong someone’s time in the UK. In the current economic circumstances, it is vital that resources are used where they are most needed. While I recognise that the intention of this amendment is to reduce delay for children and trafficked persons, the consequences for the appeals framework are not justified for the following reasons.

First, the amendment is too broad. It would extend the right of appeal under Section 83 of the 2002 Act to anyone granted leave after a refusal of asylum, not just children and trafficked persons. This would result in additional costs and resources to administer each appeal. Secondly, only a minority of unaccompanied children who claim asylum are affected by this policy in the way described by my noble friend. It would affect only those who are older than 16 and a half when refused asylum but granted some other form of leave. As we have said, these children are close to adulthood and have a right of appeal should a decision be taken to remove them after their leave runs out at age 17 and a half. This delay is not unreasonable.

Thirdly, while it is correct that trafficked persons are similarly affected, for similar reasons to those we have given in relation to children we believe that the current policy may be equitable in all the circumstances. Section 83 of the 2002 Act affects only those trafficked persons who claim and are refused asylum. It is important to remember that in all cases before a child or any trafficked person is removed from the UK, they will be entitled to a right of appeal. The Government’s policy ensures that individuals do not have multiple appeal rights over a brief period, possibly raising the same arguments on each occasion as matters may not have evolved since their last appeal. The amendment proposed would undermine this key principle of the Secretary of State’s asylum appeals framework. For the reasons set out above, we are not persuaded that the current policy for appeal rights under Section 83 of the 2002 Act, either for children or more generally, has an impact of the magnitude necessary to justify incurring additional expense in relation to appeals.

Amendment 113E concerns the Secretary of State’s powers to certify, under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that removing a person to a safe third country will not breach their human rights where the presumption is that the country to which the person is to be removed is safe. The effect of the certificate is that an appeal can be brought only after the person has been removed. This provision prevents appeals being used to delay removal in hopeless cases. Persons will be removed to a third country only if that country will not remove the person to another country other than in accordance with the refugee convention. If the certificate is challenged by judicial review, the court is required to regard the third country as one where the person’s rights under the refugee convention will not be breached.

Amendment 113E is tabled on the basis that Section 94(8) seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a court to consider the safety of the country of removal. It is, however, unnecessary. The courts are already able to consider whether the person’s human rights might be breached where judicial review challenges the issuing of the certificate. Once removed to the third country, an appeal may be brought and refugee convention issues can be considered. My noble friend asked for some detail here, and I will have to accept his very kind offer to allow me to write to him to give him a response to the data he was seeking.

Amendment 113E also seeks to remove those provisions in Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 that reduce the circumstances in which removal to a safe third country can be frustrated on the grounds of unmeritorious claims about treatment in, or removal from, those countries. The amendment would have a considerable practical impact on removals made to other European countries under the Dublin regulation. That regulation determines which state is responsible for examining an asylum claim. It plays a key role in tackling abuse of asylum systems through the phenomenon of “asylum shopping”. Indeed, the value of the Dublin regulation to the UK is clear. Since 2004, the UK has been able to remove more than 10,000 individuals under the Dublin regulation.

It is argued that the amendments are necessary to reflect the terms of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 21 December 2011. My noble friend referred to this case. The Government respectfully disagree. The ruling in NS gives useful guidance on the correct approach to fundamental rights as a matter of EU law. However, as a matter of practice, it does not significantly change the approach to domestic legislation. The concept of a rebuttable presumption in legislation when considering the impact of the Human Rights Act is not new. It was firmly established by existing case law from the European Court of Human Rights in KRS v UK in 2008 and from the House of Lords in Nasseri v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2009. What the Luxembourg court has done in NS is confirm that a similar approach should be taken when it is alleged that there is evidence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being breached.

I turn, finally, to Amendment 113F. The effect of this amendment would be to allow an appeal to proceed where the appellant has been granted leave by the Secretary of State. The purpose of many appeals is to overturn a decision to refuse to grant leave. Consequently, it is the Government’s position that in the majority of cases an appeal should not proceed where leave has been granted. Currently, Sections 104(4A) to 104(4C) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provide that an appeal cannot proceed where the appellant has been granted leave. The exceptions are where the appeal is brought on the ground of race discrimination or where the appeal is against a refusal of asylum and the leave which has been granted is in excess of 12 months. This is consistent with Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was the subject of Amendment 113D. Where the appeal does not fall into these two groups, we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for it to proceed where leave has been granted. The appeal is unnecessary because leave has already been granted. There is no detriment caused by the absence of a right of appeal which will be cured by this amendment. However, making this amendment would have a detrimental impact as additional rights of appeal would arise, each of which represents an additional cost to the Government and the taxpayer. The increased number of potential appeals will place an additional burden on the tribunal and court systems, which are already dealing with significant numbers of immigration appeals.

We do not believe that preserving an appeal right where leave has been granted is necessarily appropriate. Frequently, the Secretary of State makes a grant of leave while an appeal is pending for pragmatic reasons. This avoids unnecessary litigation at a cost to both parties. Where leave has been granted, an appeal can proceed only on an academic, rather than an individual, basis. The tribunal is primarily a fact-finding tribunal and therefore it is not appropriate for a case to proceed before it on an academic basis only. In light of these points, and in the knowledge that I will continue to work with my noble friend and respond to his questions on this issue, I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his thorough reply to these three amendments, although—as he would expect—I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with his response. In the case of Amendment 113D, he did not go into the consequences of giving limited leave to remain to unaccompanied children and trafficked persons—a matter which I tried to outline in moving this amendment. There is room for further examination, and if he is prepared to let me have sight of the review that was undertaken, that would be the most helpful basis on which we might proceed.

As he will have realised, these amendments were all framed by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and it, too, would like to be consulted in any review that will be undertaken in the future on the implications of the present situation for these unaccompanied children and trafficked persons granted limited leave to remain. My noble friend said that the amendment was too broad; we would be perfectly happy if, as a result of further discussions bringing in the legal advice of ILPA, we could agree on a more limited version of Amendment 113D.

With regard to Amendment 113E, removing someone to a supposedly safe third country does not eliminate the right of appeal, but if you have to exercise the appeal from an overseas country with all the disadvantages that that entails in the way of consulting lawyers, obtaining written statements and so on, the right is really not worth very much. The cases we considered mean that the designation of safe third countries is not a satisfactory way of proceeding, particularly when one considers the position of LGBT asylum seekers. I mentioned them in my remarks, but the Minister did not touch on them in his reply. I realise that I was asking for detailed information about what has happened to LGBT asylum seekers who were returned to supposedly safe countries. Maybe we can review the situation once we have that information in front of us.

On Amendment 113F, I mentioned the remarks of Mr Justice Beatson and thought that maybe my noble friend would not have had time to consider that judgment. Perhaps we can pursue the matter in more detail later. He did not respond to the point that, by granting leave to remain in a series of cases that touched on the same matter of principle, the Secretary of State was avoiding any resolution of the matter of principle, which would be helpful in cutting short proceedings of the tribunals in later cases. Therefore, I do not accept what my noble friend said about the saving of time in the courts; I think the reverse is probably true, but again, perhaps we can leave this for further discussion with the benefit of advice from ILPA at a later date. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration: Home Office Meetings

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not agree with that description. The arrangements for graduate students are that they can come, but they have to show that they have an appointment that is capable of earning £20,000 a year. That is a reasonable expectation that we should have for people coming in as graduate students.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, who is accountable for the false statement made by the UKBA last spring that the legacy cases had all been resolved when it now emerges that there were still 147,000 in the queue?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As we know, there is a huge number of legacy cases. This was referred to in the Question we tackled last week. It is a matter of concern that these legacy cases were not cleared up promptly; they are being cleared up now and are being tackled so that those students who have been discovered to be here improperly are being sought and obliged to leave.

UK Border Agency

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on the UK Border Agency’s handling of legacy asylum and migration cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the UK Border Agency’s response to the report of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration was published on its website on 22 November. We accept that there are lessons to be drawn from the UK Border Agency’s handling of these legacy cases. The agency’s response to the report accepts all of the chief inspector’s recommendations. However, as the chief inspector himself states, since April 2012 the agency has,

“started to tackle the problems”,

and,

“a much more robust approach [has] been introduced to locate and trace”,

individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, considering the appalling record of irresponsibility, obfuscation and mendacity revealed by this report, does not my noble friend agree that control of immigration and asylum should be returned to the Home Office so that responsibility can rest on the Home Secretary herself, where it properly belongs? Will the Government allow time for a debate on this report and on the Government’s response to it?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot pre-empt the usual channels and their negotiations on these matters, but I note my noble friend’s interest in this subject. This Question reminds me somewhat of the situation in which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, found himself in dealing with the Rural Payments Agency. This agency has had a poor record on delivery but as the new transformation plan has been developed, and as the chief inspector highlights, it has started to tackle the problems.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Debate between Lord Avebury and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, if that is the case, why have the Government refused to take into account the income provided by the spouse? Surely, if the £18,600 figure is sufficient to ensure that recourse to public funds is not on the cards, then that £18,600 should apply to the joint incomes, not to the income of the sponsor.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is the decision that was made. The Migration Advisory Committee was asked to look at the amount of money that a couple would require on the single income—the sponsor’s income. Indeed, it is the sponsor’s income that is vital to understanding this case.

My noble friend also asked how the capital should be dealt with. As pointed out by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the multiplier is two and a half times the shortfall in income, and that, too, I believe, came from the same recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee.