Foreign Workers: Engineers

Lord Bates Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of British manufacturers to recruit engineers from overseas who are suitably qualified.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, where no suitable resident worker is available companies may recruit non-EEA engineers to graduate-level roles using the tier 2 skilled work route. Where there is a shortage of applicants, engineering roles are prioritised under the tier 2 limit and employers are not required to advertise the positions before recruiting non-EEA nationals.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

Will the Minister agree to review the way tier 2 is working? It is seriously bad news for small—particularly high-tech—companies which want to recruit overseas but cannot build up a base of experience and have no knowledge of why they get refused. They then have to apply again and often lose the person they need. It is doing a lot of damage to us overseas. If the Minister will not agree to review it, will he at least be prepared to see some representatives of that industry who I could happily bring to see him to explain why they find it damaging to both productivity and British reputation overseas?

[Lord Bates]

The tier 2 limit is kept under review by the Migration Advisory Committee, which is an independent committee. It produced a report on tier 2, making a number of recommendations that we are still considering. The key point is that we want to build a more sustainable workforce where the skills needed by engineers—in technology and those areas—are in the resident labour market and do not require people to recruit employees from outside the EEA area.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

Would a modern Brunel and Pugin be excluded from the current employment applications?

[Lord Bates]

I do not know about that—obviously, the measure was not in place at that time or for their nationality. What I do know at this time is that we are investing heavily in science skills in this country. We have new science A-levels, new university technical colleges and a new science and technology baccalaureate, and the number of apprenticeships in science and manufacturing is up 74%. I think that that would be welcomed on all sides of the House and by Brunel and Pugin, if they were around.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the standing of a professional engineer in Germany is much higher than in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to enhance the social standing of professional engineers in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to do more. We talk a lot about raising productivity. We talk about raising skills. We aspire to be a high-skills, high-wage economy. Engineering and manufacturing in the modern world will be a critical part of that. That is why we need to raise their standing. That means raising the quality of apprenticeships. We set this out in English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision, which talked about introducing degree-level apprenticeships in these areas. However, there is much more to be done to ensure that science and technology engineers have the status in our society that they deserve.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, given the wish to have a much higher level of aspiring engineers from our own country, can the Minister tell us how successful we are as far as women engineers are concerned? Are their training and skills at the levels they should be in our own profession?

[Lord Bates]

I would never say that they are at the right level; we need to do more. However, I think there are many role models and examples of women who have succeeded in the worlds of science and engineering and we need to point to them. We should also encourage more science students to take up the degree-level qualifications required by our growing employment sector.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Does the Minister really think that it is sensible to persist with a net immigration target that actually hinders manufacturers and other businesses from bringing in specially trained staff from overseas, while at the same time freezing in real terms support for further education to train the people we need here at home? What projections have the Government made on the impact that this will have on our competitiveness in the global market?

[Lord Bates]

I do not accept the premise of the question, which is that we are not investing. We are introducing the apprentice levy. We are introducing the immigration skills surcharge. The number of apprenticeships has gone up from 1.5 million to 3 million and that of science and technology apprenticeships by 74%. We are investing £200 million in universities’ science and engineering capital funds. We are doing all those things in the expectation that industry will not then go out shopping for employees overseas but will actually use the talent we have grown here at home.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, according to EngineeringUK, Britain needs to recruit 1.8 million engineers by 2022 just to stand still. Yesterday, the Government told us during Committee on the Immigration Bill that no decisions had been made on the rate and scope of their proposed new immigration skills charge on recruitment from outside the EU—which means, of course, that this House is being denied information on precisely what it is being asked to agree to. Are the Government actually considering applying the skills charge—which could be £1,000 per year—to expanding and successful firms which, due to severe recruitment difficulties, can fill all their vacancies for highly skilled engineers only by recruiting from outside the EU?

[Lord Bates]

First, to the noble Lord’s charge that we are somehow denying the House information, the report produced by the Migration Advisory Committee was received on 19 January; it is now 10 February. The Government have a duty to consult on and consider the findings of the report before we make further decisions. I come back to the central point: we cannot keep saying that we need to bridge the skills gap and raise productivity levels in this country and then create a loophole whereby people can avoid recruiting perfectly qualified and able people in this country and go overseas to recruit them instead. That is not good for Britain in the long term, it is not sustainable, and that is what we want to change.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, over the past 15 years there has been an enormous increase in the number of engineering undergraduates in British universities, yet we seem to have made remarkably little progress in bridging the skills gap. In fact, engineering graduates have a higher than average unemployment rate six months after graduation. Are the Government acting to investigate and explain why this enormous increase in investment in engineering in universities appears to be having so little impact in the labour market?

[Lord Bates]

We certainly are in contact with the universities, and there is ongoing dialogue between the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the engineering and manufacturing organisations. We need to tackle that, but we argue that the way to do so is to ensure that those graduates coming out of British universities, having invested their energy and time in this country, are among the first in the queue to be considered for the jobs and opportunities open to them.

Immigration Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I am a father and a grandfather and of course I would do nothing of the kind, but then I am not in the situation of families in Syria. It is almost unimaginable to do that, but the question is whether there is a serious risk that it could happen. There is some evidence that that is exactly what has happened in relation to Sweden and Albania—Albania is different because that is a peaceful country. I raise the question. We need to be careful. If it was done through the UNHCR, we would be saving the same number of children, but we would not run the risk of encouraging further children to get into serious difficulty.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

Before I address the remarks relating to this amendment, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, to the chair. I understand it is her first Committee outing as a Deputy Chairman. As an alumnus of that role, I know the fear and intimidation of being faced with the Marshalled List in a very difficult Committee. I am sure all members of the Committee will be very sympathetic to her on her first day.

No one can be unmoved by the quality of the contributions to this debate—I declare myself a father and a grandfather. We identify absolutely with the pain and suffering which people are feeling at this time. I agree with the UN Secretary-General that this particular migration crisis is one of the greatest since the formation of the United Nations. He was right in talking about the scale of the problem.

It might help the Committee if I set out the rationale behind the Government’s current approach and set that in context of the fact that we are dealing with a very fast-moving situation. There is quite a lot of pressure which, rightly, comes from people who are trying to nail the Government down and ask, “Where are you with this particular Statement?” It is very fast moving. A significant number of discussions took place on the margins of the Supporting Syria conference a week last Thursday. Some 35 countries were there discussing these issues. On Thursday, James Brokenshire will be hosting a round table with Save the Children, UNHCR and UNICEF to discuss the specific statements on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children made by the Government on 28 January. This issue was raised by Save the Children and underscored by the DfID Select Committee. There is also the ongoing International Syria Support Group meeting in Munich on Thursday which will be attended by the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary. I am trying to set this in context: it is very fast moving.

If I was standing here in this capacity last year, I would have been facing questions—I was standing here last year and I did face questions—from noble Lords who asked me repeatedly to tell them how many people had currently arrived. Officials would tell me to avoid putting a number on it, because it was not very impressive. It was fewer than 100, then 120 and 130: complaints came that it was derisory. Then came the Prime Minister’s announcement in September that it would be 20,000 over the period of this Parliament. So far, 50% of those have now arrived. He said it would be 1,000 before Christmas and I then got repeated questions asking whether they would all be here by Christmas. More than 1,000 arrived by Christmas. That process is continuing. Last year we might have talked about £500 million of aid committed to the region, particularly to help Syrian refugees. That figure went up to £1.1 billion and last week it was doubled to £2.3 billion.

It is right that we are moved by the terrible situation which people are facing but, outside this Committee, it would be unfair to present a picture to the many organisations who are doing incredible work in this area that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, are unmoved by this. He is deeply moved by it and the Government are trying to work their way through.

As to the approach we are taking, the crisis we identified was that people were undertaking a perilous journey. I understand the arguments made about “we are where we are” or “they are where they are”, but that was the context in which we began this policy. The European Union’s policy at that point was relocation: in other words, people arrive and then you simply move them around different countries. We felt that simply having the same policy was not the right approach. The total number it aspired to move around was 160,000; currently some 340 have actually been moved. I do not want to start from the premise that we have somehow just plucked this approach from the air and that it has been proved to be fundamentally wrong.

We said that we needed to stop them undertaking that journey, because we knew that they would then immediately fall prey to the criminal gangs—we know the figure of 90%. These gangs are making vast fortunes from trafficking individuals. In fact there was one particular gang which was broken up by the National Crime Agency, working with Europol on 2 December, when 23 people were arrested. This one gang was responsible for 100 Syrian migrants a day coming into Greece and was making estimated earnings of €10 million in the process. This is a very lucrative business. Our first principle is to say that everything we need to do is to stop people making that journey. You then say, “How do you stop them making that journey if you are just giving them humanitarian aid?” They need some hope that they can potentially get out of that area through a safe route—and therefore the Syria Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme was expanded. We worked with the International Organization for Migration and the UNHCR to identify the most deserving people, based on established international UNHCR criteria—namely, those who had been victims of torture or persecution; women and girls at risk of violence; and those in acute medical need. Those were the priorities. When they were identified, they could be brought out not as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children but in family units. They are put on a plane with papers; they come to Glasgow, London or wherever it is, and they have a house. They have social workers around them; the children have a place in a school prepared for them when they arrive, they are able to work immediately when they arrive, and they get language support.

So while noble Lords say that we are not doing enough, it is perhaps wrong to say that there is no logic underpinning our approach. In fact, all the way through this process, we have worked very closely with the UNHCR, which believes that it is best to keep families together, particularly for children. That is why we have been following that approach. Of course, there are many more things that need to be done. In terms of how the amendment is worded, to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, it talks about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children without designating a specific country. That is one of the things that we have discovered is a real issue. Under humanitarian law, to designate the specific country is very difficult, because you are then differentiating between people on the basis of geography rather than need. So the wording of the amendment is correct.

In the year to September 2015, 1,570 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arrived in the UK, and 61% of those children were 16 or over. Only 7% were 14 and under. I have to say that those figures surprised me when I read them, because when I thought of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children I thought of my grandson, who is five or six. As we have discussed in Questions before, a large number of that particular group come from certain areas such as Eritrea, which is not to say that Eritrea is not a country that people would want to leave because of their conscription and national service in an open-ended way. They also come from Albania and other countries. At the moment, Albania forms 632 while Eritrea forms 460 of the total unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, while Afghanistan forms 179 and Syria 118. I present that as simply an expansion on the designation and the general term of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. In other words, are we actually helping those whom we want to help the most?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

On that very point, is the Minister aware that something like 40% of these unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are involved in an age dispute? Quite often, those who claim to be 16 are found to be 18. The point is that many of them are older than one might think.

[Lord Bates]

That is possibly the case. The Prime Minister announced on 28 January that we are going to continue the discussions. He also said that it is absolutely critical for people’s safety that, when a child or anyone sets foot on a Greek island, in Italy or in any of the reception areas, they are properly recorded via biometrics at that point. That is supposed to happen under the Dublin regulations. However, it was not happening and Europol was deeply concerned about the risk of a lot of people going missing and not being able to be tracked. We have given the European Asylum Support Office additional support, which is then directed to—it is an awful name—hotspot centres, which are reception centres. We have established a £10 million fund to help, particularly with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Home Secretary has asked the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, to go to each of those centres and, as a former police officer and someone who is leading the modern-day slavery initiative and the implementation of the legislation, to evaluate the situation and see what more can be done in that area, and then to report back to Ministers. We have established similar funding for people to search out the most vulnerable in the camps at Calais and Dunkirk.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the situation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, particularly in Kent. I totally accept that many people are willing to foster children. The generosity of the British people is as alive and well now as it ever was in 1938, but often they are not sure how to help. Following the exchanges that we had yesterday, I was inspired this morning to get a letter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. I have not asked his permission to mention this but I shall take the risk and ask his forgiveness if I have it wrong. I had mentioned that, sadly, despite widespread support among people who are saying, “We are prepared to help and to be foster parents”, only a very small number of local authorities—about six or seven—had come forward to offer support. The right reverend Prelate said that he would be prepared to write to diocesan bishops across the country saying that this might be something that they could raise with their local authorities to see whether they could do a little more to help during this acute crisis. There is much more that can be done, but I wanted to take the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach for noble Lords.

Perhaps I may answer a couple of specific questions that were asked of me. In terms of the Dublin regulations and reuniting families, there is no limit on the number. If someone qualifies under the Dublin regulations and claims asylum, they will be admitted to the UK. Of course, the point of difference between us that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned is that the Dublin regulations are—again, this is an awful word—triggered at the point that a person claims asylum. If people in camps in Calais and Dunkirk do not claim asylum there—of course, they do not want to claim asylum there, because they want to get to the UK and claim asylum here—they do not get the protections afforded by the Dublin regulations. That is a problem and we need to work through it, but that is how it arises.

The French have set up 96 welcome centres across France and 2,500 individuals have chosen to go to one of them since October. Some 80% of them then decided to claim asylum or take voluntary return.

I say to the noble Lord and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I totally get where they are coming from and I empathise very much with the position. There is a huge amount going on, perhaps not seen, and I have tried to lift the veil on a little bit of what is going on at present. Suffice it to say, I have no doubt that we will come back with further announcements on progress, particularly on the issue of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, over the next weeks and months, as we should and as the Prime Minister has stated. I hope that, in that spirit, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I asked the Minister a very specific question about the Independent on Sunday report. If he cannot reply now, will he undertake to write to me? He has been very good at following up our sessions with full letters.

[Lord Bates]

Yes, I will write to make sure that I get it absolutely right.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the situation within Syria and potential relocation within Syria. Is he able to say a word about what seems to be quite a fast-changing situation, where the places to which the Syrian population might go are being bombed, starved or both almost out of existence? The situation changes fast. It would be useful to have on record whether the Government’s thinking is moving equally fast.

[Lord Bates]

It is a fast-changing situation and needs to be balanced with what we are talking about, which is wanting to ensure that we do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in need. We should also bear in mind when we talk about 3,000 children that there are currently 2.1 million children who are refugees from Syria, so 3,000 in addition is a relatively small number. You can help more in the region. I do not want to sound heartless: we talk about 3,000 people in this amendment, but our aid is providing 15 million food rations already, supporting 600,000 families, educating or supporting in education 227,000 children and providing 2 million medical interventions. I am not expecting people to say, “That’s fine, then”. The pressure needs to be maintained. It is a great humanitarian crisis and this place should be putting pressure on the Executive to take further action. I hope from what I have set out that I can go as far as to say that the Government are taking this seriously. We are not unmoved by it and Britain is doing a substantial amount of which we can be proud.

[Baroness Sheehan]

Can the Minister say a few words on his statement about most asylum seekers being 16 year-olds, at the upper age of the limit? Surely that is not surprising, because a five or a six year-old, unless he had an older sibling to help him, could not make that perilous journey. Also, NGOs on the ground have told me that 17 and 18 year-olds tend to claim to be younger than they are because they do not wish to get caught up in the dysfunctional immigration asylum system in France. I think that that argument works both ways.

[Lord Bates]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. The age verification of children is a key challenge facing all the agencies. That is why trying to establish documentation is so important. One can understand why, when someone is received into the country, they self-declare as being a child, because they may then get a different level of treatment and protection. That may be one reason why the age profile is what it is. It is difficult to know how to get around that, other than to work with the individual to identify their documents and age and to make sure that they are in the system and can get age-appropriate support.

[Lord Dubs]

I am enormously grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. With two exceptions, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Green, they have all been in support of the amendment, and I am grateful for that. Even the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the Minister qualified their opposition by making sympathetic and reasonably supportive comments.

Briefly, I will say one or two things in reply to the debate. First of all, of course we all welcome the government money that is going into the refugee camps in the region and of course we welcome the vulnerable persons relocation scheme—it has a lot of merit. I think some of us think that the numbers are very small in relation to the number of people in the camps in the region, but we all think that it is a good scheme. We also think that the principle of keeping families together is desirable. The difficulty is that, if there were only people in the camps, and not a million or so more in various European countries, the principle would be easier to apply and we could persuade other EU countries to do the same as we are and take in the vulnerable families. The trouble is that that is not the situation as it is.

We are dealing with a very large number of people who have fled the region—and victims of people trafficking certainly—and are now scattered across many EU countries. It is from among those people that we have identified that there are 24,000 or so unaccompanied children, who are in a particularly desperate situation. In the camps, at least there is support from the various agencies and the United Nations to enable them to live in not wonderful conditions but at least to get food, water and some shelter. But for some of those in Europe, heaven knows whether they have any safety at all. That is the point of the amendment.

Three thousand is a very small number. The Minister talked about the Dublin convention and I wonder whether he is seeking refuge behind that when other EU countries are not necessarily adhering to it either. That may be for another day.

We have an urgent problem. I understand that there is a concern that some of this might provide pull factors for the families. However, as far as we know, these children are, at the moment, on their own. Honestly, if a handful of them had been pushed out of the region in order to attract family members, it would not be a large number and I am pretty convinced that the majority of these unaccompanied children have not been pushed out as a way of enabling their families to follow them. These are children who are vulnerable in their own right.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

239C: Schedule 11, page 140, line 16, leave out from “means” to end of line 18 and insert “only a person who is—
(a) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,(b) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve, or(c) a person appointed as a special constable in Northern Ireland by virtue of provision incorporating section 79 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847;”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

241C: Clause 47, page 45, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) in Northern Ireland, as an agency worker within the meaning of the Agency Workers Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (SR 2011/350) in respect of whom the public authority is the hirer within the meaning of those regulations,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

242A: Clause 48, page 46, line 17, after “Part” insert “in relation to those functions”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

242D: Clause 49, page 46, line 42, leave out “or”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

242H: Clause 52, page 48, line 5, leave out “in both England and” and insert “outside Wales and in”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

242K: Clause 53, page 48, line 18, at end insert—
““Wales” has the same meaning as in the Government of Wales Act 2006.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has made some very interesting points on this issue. I wait with interest to see what the Minister has to say in response. I would be grateful if he would respond on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised about consultation on the implications for the public sector.

He mentioned the health service and universities. It will obviously be no secret that representations have been received from universities and health service organisations about the implications of this proposal. Indeed, I understand that some universities have taken it up directly with government. Will the Minister set out the extent to which the consultation covered public sector organisations and say what responses were received? Clearly, their line is over the additional costs it is likely to cause the service in question. Indeed, universities will say that it is causing additional costs which might lead to them not necessarily being able to recruit the best people, and obviously part of the role of a university is to train people and increase their skills through higher education. It would seem a bit distorted if the purpose of the levy was to enable money to be provided for apprenticeships but, in so doing, it managed to weaken the ability of universities to provide the best people to provide the education which in itself is raising the skills of people who will be needed in the labour market in the future.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, Clause 55 provides a power to raise the charge, but details about the rate and scope of the immigration skills charge will be set out in regulations to be laid before the introduction of the charge. At that point there will be an opportunity for an informed debate on the details within the regulations. There are likely to be legal implications of introducing exemptions which will require careful consideration.

The Migration Advisory Committee published its review of tier 2 migration on 19 January, and the Government need time fully to consider the evidence about the likely impact of different rates on different types of organisation. As well as the Migration Advisory Committee’s findings and recommendations, we wish to consider other evidence from stakeholders and any legal implications before recommending the rate at which the immigration skills charge could be set and whether any exemptions should be applied.

The Government believe in consulting those affected by the proposed changes. The independent Migration Advisory Committee carried out detailed stakeholder consultation as part of its review of tier 2 migration. In addition, this Government have welcomed discussions with, and received evidence from, a large number of businesses and representative organisations. The process will continue and will, of course, take into account the representations that have been made today by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and those received from academic institutions both by me directly and by other colleagues.

As for consulting on the changes, since the announcement in May, we have been consulting employers and business leaders across the private and public sectors to get their views on the immigration skills charge. This will continue. In addition, the Migration Advisory Committee conducted a review of tier 2 with the remit to advise government on restricting tier 2 to genuine skills shortages and highly specialised experts. As part of this review, the MAC considered evidence from employers on the immigration skills charge.

As to the impact on healthcare, which the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Wallace, asked about, no decision has yet been made. The details of the charge will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for a full debate at that point.

The Government have not said that the immigration skills charge will fund the 3 million apprenticeships; rather, they have said that the immigration skills charge will contribute towards skills funding. The level of the charge has not yet been set. The Government are also proposing an apprenticeship levy, not linked to migration, which will go towards apprenticeship funding. The Migration Advisory Committee recommended a figure of £1,000 per year, which is large enough to raise a reasonable amount of revenue and have an impact on employer behaviour.

That is at the core of what this is about. As the Prime Minister said at the outset, it has been far too easy for some businesses to bring in workers from overseas rather than take the long-term decision to train the resident workforce in the UK. We need to do more to change that, and that is the rationale that is driving this. We are proposing that a charge be enabled through this legislation, and we are continuing to consult because we are not unmoved by the noble Lord’s argument that the level at which this is set and those to whom it is applied will have significant implications. Therefore, we need to get that right.

The noble Lord slightly chastised us by saying that we used to have a policy of attracting the brightest and the best. Of course, there is only one thing better than that, and that is to actually grow the brightest and the best here. That is what this policy is designed to do. More details will follow and the House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those when they are presented.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before my noble friend responds on our amendments, I wonder whether the Minister can advise the Committee how noble Lords should deal with this when further government thinking becomes clear. As he well knows, we can scrutinise to our heart’s content but we cannot actually do anything about what is in regulations.

I thought that the Minister said at the beginning of his response that there had not been a decision and that this was permissive of regulations, but at the end he confirmed that this is what is in the Government’s mind, which is obviously common sense. However, by bringing forward such a significant new policy proposal as this, having given the Commons five minutes to debate it, as my noble friend said, I do not know how we can really deal with this just through regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I will be a little more guarded in what I say on this one. Some very strong and forceful speeches have been made on the basis that it appears that certain individuals who may have a lot of money are being treated rather differently from those who do not. I will leave it in the context that I will wait to see whether the Minister will accept this amendment. I will wait and see what the Government’s justification is for the tier 1 visa and the conditions under which it is given before I come to any conclusions for the Opposition. I have listened with great interest to what has been said. There seem to have been some pretty powerful points made, and I also want to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

[Lord Bates]

My speech begins with the line that I have listened carefully to the arguments. I think the arguments have been well made. I will try to set out for the benefit of the Committee the rationale behind this and then answer some of the specific questions. I underline the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the United Kingdom remains an attractive destination for legitimate international investors. The tier 1 investor visa route allows migrants to make a significant financial contribution to the UK, either through the purchase of share or loan capital in UK businesses, or through UK government bonds. The route does not recognise the purchase of property as a qualifying investment.

The proposed amendment would not only result in the immediate loss of millions of pounds of capital inflow, but deliver a powerful global message that foreign investors are no longer welcome in the UK. This is a message the Government have no desire to send. The Government are clear in their commitment to ensuring that the investor route delivers benefits to UK taxpayers and it remains an important component of the UK’s visa offer for high value migrants.

Acting on an independent Migration Advisory Committee review of the tier 1 investor category, the Government introduced a package of reforms in November 2014. These included taking additional powers to refuse applications where the funds have been obtained unlawfully, where the applicant is not in control of the funds and where the granting of the application would not be conducive to the public good. The Government also raised the investment threshold from £1 million to £2 million and removed a provision which allowed investments to be funded through a loan. Since April last year the immigration rules have also required that prospective tier 1 applicants must open a UK bank account before their application for a visa is allowed. This ensures they have undergone financial due diligence checks before they are granted an investor visa.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for raising his concerns that visas of this nature have no place in a sovereign nation and that this may be the preserve of tax havens. It would be correct to observe that some so-called tax havens operate citizenship-by-investment schemes, whereby wealthy individuals may be able to effectively purchase a second nationality in return for a sizeable donation, often paid directly to the host Government. I make it absolutely clear that the UK’s tier 1 investor visa is not such a scheme. The UK’s investor visa offers no guarantee of an extension, beyond the initial two or three-year term, let alone settlement, or citizenship. At each of these points, applicants must not only demonstrate that they have continued to hold the appropriate qualifying investments, but are also subjected to further robust checks.

Let me deal with some of the points that have been raised and provide a bit of additional information. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about precautions. I think my answer addressed some of the points he raised about due diligence, which is carried out in the process of securing the bank account. Also, the United Kingdom maintains some of the toughest anti-money laundering laws in the world and is respected as such. The general grounds for refusal in immigration rules enable the Government to refuse investor visas where the applicant’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, which means that we carry out checks on their criminal background. Under a pilot scheme, investor visa applicants are required to provide criminal record checks from their country of residence as a condition of applying for the visa.

As a result of all the changes that we have introduced, and which significantly toughen up the approach—this may speak to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised—in the last quarter for which figures are available we granted only 46 such visas compared to 274 in the corresponding period in the previous year. That is a reduction of 83%. Before the noble Lord, Lord Green, gets to his feet, let me say that some of that may have something to do with the general economic situation in some of the key countries from which people would normally apply for these visas. However, it might also reflect that the toughening of the rules is having the desired effect.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Exactly so. The collapse in the numbers is very good news. It illustrates just how bad the scheme has been. Is it not the case that if you invest £10 million, you get indefinite leave to remain after two years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

That is the case.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

After that, it is only a matter of time before you get your passport. This is, in effect, selling passports, as the Minister has just acknowledged, and, sometimes, in cases where it may not have been entirely advantageous. But they can also take their money out of gilts. Are we really persuading people to invest in a serious and useful manner in Britain by a scheme like this? I rather doubt it.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord, Lord Green, makes some very good points. I was looking behind me for some inspiration that would enable me to provide a brilliant argument as to why that is not the case. In fact, there were just nods, as if to say, “Yes, that is about right”. This is something that we need to keep under very careful review, and we do. When we get advice from the Migration Advisory Committee that there are problems with the scheme, we have, in the past, shown that we will take action.

On some of the points that were raised about property, there is no suggestion from anyone that people would not be able to own property in any part of the world. The housing issues that were raised are not linked to the scheme. Under the coalition Government, we significantly raised the stamp duty to about 12% on larger homes at that level. In a similar vein, the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement that there would be a further levy of an additional 3% for people coming in and purchasing a home in the UK as a second home. That was on top of the increase to 12%. Significant things are happening, but it is about how we maintain an offering on the international stage which ensures that we can attract people with exceptional talent, people who want to come and invest here, and people who want to study, visit or work here so that they can contribute to the public good of this country. We need to keep that under review. That is something that the Government continue to do. I am sure that we will want to take note of the comments made in the course of the debate ahead of Report. I am sure we will revisit it then, but until that point I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, temporarily.

[Lord Rosser]

I am not quite clear on what the Minister said in the last part of his comments. Is he saying that he intends to reflect on what has been said and write to us prior to Report? What does he envisage will happen between now and Report?

[Lord Bates]

Forgive me for trying to be reasonable. I was simply saying that this was an interesting argument that I listened to and followed. A number of points were raised from all parts of the Committee, expressing concerns about how this system operates. I want to go back and talk with colleagues about the system and how it operates, and then come back with answers to the points raised or suggestions as to how things could be improved.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

If this does come back, will the Minister share with the House how the Government intend to make their position credible and defensible before this international conference, at which the Prime Minister will claim that Britain is leading in the security of its provisions to prevent money laundering?

[Lord Bates]

Her Majesty’s Government’s position is always credible and defensible. Most people would recognise that this is a sensitive area, but the UK has taken a very strong stand in the international community on tackling money laundering. It does that consistently through raising matters at the G20, which is a prime vehicle for operating on this, and through the OECD, which has its regulations as well. We will continue to do that. I would have thought that everybody would welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is taking this leadership and wanting to see how further things could be done. It is absolutely the role of this House to apply pressure to the Executive to make sure that they are living up to the arguments and principles that they seek that others observe.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Can I add a tiny bit of extra pressure on the Executive between now and Report and ask whether the Government have information about the effect on housing numbers and housing prices as a result of this policy? That might be quite difficult as a lot of it will be anecdotal, but it is a jolly big anecdote along the south bank of the Thames, with units that are sold off plan and will probably remain empty. There is a great deal of concern about the impact of the role played by those taking advantage of this route on the housing shortage and on housing prices.

[Lord Bates]

Housing is outside the scope. I know that the effect on the housing market will be an interesting point of research, but we are focusing on the visa that is primarily targeted into government gilts, or loan stock or equity in UK-registered corporations. Those are the bounds of it. I mentioned that we have taken action before. This will probably excite even more attention, but due to EU law on free movement of capital, the Government believe that there would be legal difficulties in treating residents and non-residents differently by, for example, restricting purchases or charging a higher rate of tax.

I have said what I have said. I am quite genuine. A point has been made. I should just temper the Committee’s expectations because I spent the first two pages of my speech defending the scheme, saying that it was important to send out the message and that these investors were coming. I do not accept the generic term of “dodgy” with “investor”. A lot of investment into this country has been of immense value in providing jobs and wealth to the people who are here. However, I will go away and reflect on the points that have been raised about the specific working of the scheme and come back on Report where those arguments can be tested.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord in having to reply to this debate. I am fascinated by the caution expressed by the Labour Front Bench and I hope that the Labour Party will not find itself in a position of wanting to defend the super-rich against the criticism from the Liberal Democrats—of course, I speak for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on this. Perhaps the Labour Party will reflect a little further on that between now and Report. I hope that I will not miss Report. I have to admit to everyone here that I am going on holiday for the first two weeks of March. I am going to Antigua, but I shall not ask whether I can buy citizenship while I am there.

[Lord Bates]

I will put a special plea to the business managers that we schedule Report then.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to write to all noble Lords on the Committee between now and then with a number of answers. Have the Government examined the Canadian experience and looked at why the Canadians abolished their category? Have we considered the same? Can the Government explain why they accepted all of the Migration Advisory Committee’s proposals on tier 2 for the immigration skills charge, but did not accept two rather important proposals from the Migration Advisory Committee that there should be a limited number of sealed bids and a substantial donation to a good causes fund as part of the conditions?

I admit that the origins of my interest in this are from when I went as a representative of Her Majesty’s Government to the capital of a former Soviet state and found myself talking with someone who was clearly very much part of the oligarchy running the country. He told me that he had just been appointed ambassador to Britain and this was rather difficult for him because at that moment he held British citizenship as well as citizenship of his state. He was going to have to come back to his own country for some weeks while this was sorted out, but he had recently bought his son the house next door to his in Chelsea and as his son was rather young he did not want to leave him on his own for so long, so he was not quite sure how he was going to manage it. I began to think it was a little odd. I decided in my two days in that country that it was not a particularly democratic one and the distribution of wealth was clearly in the hands of a very small number of people, although one or two of them offered me some extremely generous gifts, which I, of course, had to pass on. It opened my eyes to something not desirable, not in the interests of this country and not contributing to our economy.

I would have been much happier if the figures I had discovered on tier 1 had shown that the exceptional talent category had 2,000 to 3,000 people in it, the entrepreneur category 3,000 to 4,000 people and the investor category 50. That is the sort of thing we should have if we believe the Prime Minister in his commitment to attract the brightest and the best. We have got it the wrong way round at present. I wish the coalition Government had been able to push a little further in that respect, but we will make up for it. We will do our best to push the Minister and see how far we can go. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I hope this will be quick. This is a probing amendment. Clause 56 is about fees, not really about immigration, although some of it might be. The issue I would like to probe is about passports, not immigration. Clause 56 (4) provides that there may be fees which exceed the cost of “exercising the function” in question. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain to the Committee what is proposed and what lies behind this. Is it about a premium service, rather along the lines of the premium visa service? From time to time, over the years, I have heard complaints about that among the business community—probably not voiced directly to the Government. They are having to pay premium fees for what should be the basic standard service. Is there anything that the Minister can say about customer satisfaction on this? It is worth spending a minute or two getting on record the Government’s explanation of payment over and above the cost of providing proof of citizenship. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, the passport fee provisions in the Bill require that all Home Office passport-related costs are fully reflected in the fee structure. That means we can recover the costs associated with processing UK passengers at the border through the passport fee. This is reflected in our spending review settlement. They also allow for a surplus on optional, premium and fast-track services, which we intend to use to help protect the quality of, and fee for, the standard passport service and, over time, reduce the standard fee. We do not intend to generate surpluses to fund other unrelated Home Office activity. Premium or fast-track service delivery is currently, and will continue to be, based on insight into and awareness of customer expectations and needs. In future, we intend to set fees for premium services at a level which ensures that they are economically viable to the customer and ensure that Her Majesty’s Passport Office can recover the cost of the services delivered, while protecting and maintaining the standard passport service.

The services and fees will be set out in regulations. As set out in the existing Clause 56(1), fees are set to meet the cost of such functions associated with the issuing of a passport or other travel documents. They will require approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury and Parliament. Therefore, the regulations do not provide for fees to be set at a level deliberately aimed to achieve an excess or surplus on the overall service. The regulations would provide for the fee for specific premium elements of the service to be charged above cost, but any income derived from that would be required to be used to maintain or reduce the cost of other services provided within the overall passport function.

Although I recognise that this is a probing amendment, the proposal would not work, first, because the use of fast-track services is a matter of individual customer choice and therefore subject to fluctuating demand. Unplanned surpluses, or even deficits, may therefore materialise in-year. Secondly, and more importantly, the level of fees for individual services should be determined by the overall cost of delivering the whole passport function, not the other way around. Our ambition is for the standard passport fee to remain at the current level initially and to fall over time as the cost of passport functions is reduced. This will be achieved through transforming delivery through digital and online services, complemented by the customer’s ability to choose the access services with an appropriate level of fees to reflect the higher level and speed of service provided. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, having listened to that explanation, it seems that the amendment pretty accurately reflects what the Minister has been saying, but I will not spend time on that now. Since we are talking about passports, does the Minister have in his brief the target time for the issue of a passport on application at the moment—which I presume is the standard service—against which a premium service will be designed?

[Lord Bates]

It is five days for domestic and 14 days for overseas. There are, of course, some elements of variance, but those are the standard times.

[Baroness Hamwee]

That is helpful, because to issue a passport in less than five days strikes me as going some, though perhaps it may not be so difficult if it is a renewal. I shall be interested to see what the premium service purports to offer. I might be about to hear.

[Lord Bates]

The premium service is four hours: well worth the money.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I might hand it over to the noble Lord, Lord Green, to interrogate. What checks are undertaken for that? I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, at this stage I shall be extremely brief although I am very happy to talk further, out of Committee. The purpose of the amendment is to probe. A Government who are deeply and publicly committed to the promotion of marriage appear to be imposing charges on it. Before I run off to the Daily Mail to tell it that the Conservatives are making marriage more difficult, perhaps we could explore the implication of some of these additional charges and discuss what the Government really intend with them. We are in favour of settled relationships, both civil partnerships and marriage. The Government have said many times before that they want to promote them. That is the purpose of this probing amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

Currently, both the local registration service and the Registrar General provide a range of services in connection with the registration of births, marriages, civil partnerships and deaths for which, in some instances, there is currently no power to charge a fee. The existing fee-raising powers are restrictive and out-dated and do not cover the full range of services provided. For example, the Registrar General is involved with the verification of around 5,000 divorce documents each year which have been obtained overseas and also provides blank certificate stock to over 30,000 buildings for use in certificate issue. These are just two examples of services provided by the Registrar General for which there is currently no provision to charge a fee to the end-user and where the expense must be recovered from central funds.

Schedule 12 will modernise the process of setting fees for registration services and enable fees to be set for those services which have previously been provided without charge. The provisions also move existing fee-charging powers into regulations, providing more flexibility and making it easier to amend them in the future. This will allow the local registration service and the Registrar General to recover more of the costs of providing registration services. It will reduce the reliance on central funding and ensure that, where possible, any costs are borne by the users of the services on a cost-recovery basis in line with Treasury guidelines.

I hope that helps the noble Lord and he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is extremely helpful. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

243: Clause 62, page 52, line 39, leave out “any provision of section 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7” and insert “primary legislation”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

245B: Clause 64, page 54, line 1, leave out subsection (3)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

line 3, leave out “Director of Labour Market Enforcement” and insert “enforcement of certain legislation relating to the labour market”

Immigration Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

To move—

(1) that the order of commitment of 22 December 2015 be varied so that the provisions which have not yet been considered in Committee (from after Clause 43 to Clause 65, Schedules 10 to 12 and the Title) be considered in Grand Committee;

(2) that the Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House of 12 January (order of consideration of clauses and Schedules) be an Instruction to the Grand Committee; and

(3) that on completion of consideration of the Bill in Grand Committee the Bill be reported to the House in respect of its consideration in both Committee of the Whole House and Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Refugees: Unaccompanied Children

Lord Bates Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to relieve the situation of unaccompanied refugee children.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are working with the UNHCR to resettle unaccompanied refugee children from conflict areas where it is in the best interests of the child to do so. These are likely to be exceptional cases: for most children, their needs are best met in the region. We are providing an additional £10 million of support for vulnerable children in Europe.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

On 2 December, the Prime Minister said that he was thinking again about our moral duty towards these children. That was 10 weeks ago. What has happened in that 10 weeks, and what is going to happen in the next 10 weeks, to those children who are spread out in so many ways? They are deserving of our compassion, and those who are showing compassion are the people—young people especially—working as volunteers in Calais, Dunkirk and other places. As a House, we should express our appreciation of everything that they are doing.

[Lord Bates]

I certainly endorse what the noble Lord says about the volunteers who are giving up their time to help those people in need. The noble Lord asked what has happened since 2 December. On 28 January, the Prime Minister made a Statement outlining what he had done in the interim period, and he announced four new initiatives. He said that he was going to send the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, to look at the hotspots, as they are called, or reception centres, to see what was happening to children. We announced an additional £10 million of support, particularly for children who had arrived there. He also said that we would meet the UNHCR and Save the Children, and that is happening this Thursday. However, I thought the noble Lord might have given a passing mention to the fact that, last week, the Prime Minister announced a doubling of the aid we are giving to Syria—from £1.1 billion to £2.3 billion—by the end of the Parliament, which I am sure is welcomed by everyone in the House.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, following the statement last week by Brian Donald, the head of Europol, that 10,000 children had disappeared and an entire criminal infrastructure dedicated to exploiting migrants had been established, will the Minister tell the House what representations we have made to Europol and what discussions we are having with it about tackling this? Also, given that the 100,000 people now massing at Oncupinar, on the Turkish border with the Aleppo province, are facing an aerial bombardment campaign and the borders are closed to them—many of those refugees will be children—what action are the Government taking to ask that those borders be opened to allow the refugees safe passage across?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to focus on this. Europol estimates that some 90% of people who arrive at Calais have been trafficked by criminal gangs. That is why the Prime Minister announced that we are setting up the Organised Immigration Crime Task Force, and there have been some early successes, although we need to work much harder on that. That is also why Kevin Hyland—I know the noble Lord knows him and respects his work—is looking at those issues. On the situation in Turkey, that is why we have announced a further £275 million as part of the EU-Turkey agreement, to provide aid to that southern border.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My noble friend recently told the House he hoped that more local authorities would extend a warm welcome to refugee children and ensure that they are well cared for, in accordance with the traditions of our country. Has there been progress?

[Lord Bates]

I must admit that I wish there had been more. My noble friend is right to raise this matter. Kent is bearing an unfair share of the burden of caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: more than 1,000 are being cared for there. The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote in November asking local authorities to come forward. So far we have had interest from 24—but that is out of 440. Only eight children out of 1,000 have so far been offered places. I would like to think that all Members of this House who have links to their local authorities would be encouraging them to look again and see what can be done to help Kent in its hour of need.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister may know, Eritrean children are fleeing from their country because of their experience of the most brutal human rights violations, often described as crimes against humanity. Will the Minister comment on the fact that, on the most recent evidence, the UK continues to reject Eritreans, including children, on the basis of a discredited Danish report, rather than using a balanced UN report?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness asked a Question on this subject a couple of weeks ago. We still accept a large number of Eritreans who come here, because of the open-ended nature of the military service that they have to undertake. So far, we have accepted a large number of them. The UN report to which the noble Baroness refers did not have access in-country; our policy is based on in-country information from our embassy, and we will continue to keep the situation under review.

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

My Lords, as one of the bishops from Kent, may I take the Minister back to his previous answer? In fact, some 1,300 unaccompanied refugee children are housed in Kent, and the local authorities and the voluntary agencies are under very significant pressure. May I push him a little as to whether, in the light of the somewhat unencouraging response from other local authorities, Her Majesty’s Government intend to do anything else to ensure a more effective national dispersal programme—given that we are talking not just about this moment, but about the likely 10 years that will be needed to get a young person from the point of arrival to full integration, with all the work in education, language and healthcare needed to go with that, and the considerable investment required? Some assurance would help my colleagues in Kent.

[Lord Bates]

It is absolutely right to raise that point: we have a particular problem there, and we need more local authorities to come forward. We will take some action: the Immigration Bill before your Lordships’ House includes a provision that will allow the Secretary of State, where people do not step forward, to impose a settlement on local authorities—and that comes not only with the child, but with about £40,000 of funding per head. So we are not simply asking people to take additional responsibilities. If there is anything that can be done through the diocese of Kent to exert pressure on local authorities more widely to take their fair share, we would of course all welcome that.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that all over the country, the British public are anxious to do something to help Syrian refugees, particularly children? There is an enormous surge of enthusiasm to do something. Could the Minister, and the Government, not make a more positive appeal? I hear from people who want to be foster parents: foster parents will be forthcoming. We cannot leave these children to fester somewhere in Europe, uncared for and vulnerable to trafficking gangs.

[Lord Bates]

Absolutely right—and I certainly join the noble Lord in appealing for more foster carers to come forward, to help not only children who are refugees but all children; there is a great shortage. But I also hope that the people of this country can take some pride in the fact that through their aid—through their taxes, which go through the Government—we shall be able to provide £2.3 billion-worth of aid, which is keeping 227,793 children in education and providing livelihood assistance to 600,000 families in the region, 2 million medical interventions and 15 million food rations. That is something we can be proud of.

Immigration Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Yes, I understand that. I am really pointing to what some Members are seeking as the result of that review—and even that would not be the best step to take at this point.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware of the calls from the Refugee Council and the arguments cited in favour of widening the family reunion criteria. I have also listened carefully to the arguments put forward today, and in particular to the personal stories that bring to life the statistics that we are considering.

We recognise that families may become fragmented due to conflict and persecution, and the speed and manner in which asylum seekers often flee their country of origin. Our policy already allows immediate family members of those with refugee leave or humanitarian protection who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country to reunite with them in the UK. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the minimum income threshold of at least £18,600 would not apply where a refugee is sponsoring their pre-flight spouse or partner to join them here.

British citizens are also able to sponsor their spouse or partner and children under 18 to join them under the family rules, providing they make the appropriate entry clearance application and meet the relevant criteria. The rules have been in place since July 2012 and reflect our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Where an application fails under family reunion provisions, our policy also requires consideration of exceptional or compassionate reasons for granting a visa outside the rules. This caters not only for extended family members of refugees where there are exceptional circumstances but for family members of British citizens who are unable to meet the financial requirement rules.

Our policy is more generous than our international obligations require. Some EU countries require up to two years’ lawful residence before a sponsor becomes eligible and impose time restrictions on how quickly family members must apply. Additionally, there are specific provisions in the Dublin regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Green, referred to, to unite unaccompanied children who claim asylum in another member state with their parents or other relatives, where they can take care of the child and it is in the child’s best interests to bring them together. We granted more than 21,000 family reunion visas between 2010 and 2014. Numbers are likely to increase in line with the numbers of recognised refugees in the UK.

Our policy prevents children with refugee status in the UK sponsoring their parents to join them. This is a considered position designed to avoid perverse incentives for children to be encouraged or even forced to leave their country and undertake a hazardous journey to the UK. As Save the Children pointed out, many children are feared to have fallen victim to people traffickers. Allowing children to sponsor their parents would play right into the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs and go against our safeguarding responsibilities.

I know that this point has been raised; we frequently discuss unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We also know that one of the key concerns of the International Organization for Migration and the UNHCR, our partners in the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, is that the best interests of the child are often served by keeping the family unit together in the region rather than providing an incentive for them to undertake a hazardous journey. It is also the reason why the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme takes family units from the region. That is the specific intent: bringing families together to the UK.

We have talked about this country’s great generosity. Many of the wonderful stories in the media have been of families from Syria arriving together. They have been pre-cleared and immediately have access to welfare and the right to work. Accommodation has been provided for them. It is an outstanding scheme, which we can all be very proud of. We do not believe that widening the criteria to include so many additional categories of people is practical or sustainable. We must be very careful not to inadvertently create a situation which encourages people to undertake the hazardous journey.

With regard to the British Red Cross, with which we work very closely, we have already accepted recommendations it made in its report Not So Straightforward: The Need for Qualified Legal Support in Refugee Family Reunion, published on 9 July, around simplifying the application form and providing consistent, accessible guidance. We are improving our guidance to caseworkers and redesigning the application form to ensure that applicants better understand the process and what is required of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in particular. Raising our sights to talk of love on day 4 of the Immigration Bill in Committee at quarter to 10 at night sends the mind wandering. It is good.

We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, to work hard and to make a contribution, but family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and family migrants must be able to integrate. This is fair to applicants and to the public. That is why the coalition Government introduced the changes to the Immigration Rules in July 2012. These amendments would seriously dilute those reforms.

Amendment 232 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to amend the minimum income threshold requirement for sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any non-EEA national dependent children to settle in the UK. This is set at £18,600 a year for a couple, with higher thresholds if children are also involved. It reflects advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee on the income that means a family settled in the UK generally cannot access income-related benefits. The amendment would reduce this to the level of the national minimum wage, or around £12,100 a year on the basis it describes. The amendment would also reduce the increments that apply if non-EEA national children are also sponsored. It would allow third-party subsidies to be counted, though it cannot ensure these will be sustained.

Amendment 232 would therefore significantly undermine the proper impact of the minimum income threshold. A couple with income equivalent to the national minimum wage can still access income-related benefits and tax credits, so a minimum income threshold set at the level suggested would not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer once the migrant partner reached settlement and had full access to welfare benefits. It would also provide less support for the migrant partner’s integration in society. That is simply not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and integration in future.

Amendment 234AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to amend the entry clearance rules for non-EEA national adult dependent relatives. The route for adult dependent relatives was reformed because of the significant NHS and social care costs which arise when adult dependent relatives settle in the UK, notwithstanding the intention of the sponsor here to look after them. The new rules do not provide a route for every parent or grandparent to join their adult child or grandchild in the UK and settle here. It is not intended that they should do so. The route now provides for those most in need of care but not for those who would simply prefer to come to live in the UK.

Amendment 239A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would remove nearly all the requirements of the family Immigration Rules for spouses and civil partners of British citizens. This would undermine our system for family migration. Understanding basic English and being financially independent help to ensure that the migrant is able to integrate and play a full part in British society. We want to see family migrants thriving here, not struggling to get by. The courts have upheld the lawfulness of these requirements, finding that they strike a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a non-EEA national partner to settle in the UK and of the community in the UK in general. The family Immigration Rules we reformed in the last Parliament are having the right impact and helping to restore public confidence in this part of the immigration system. In light of this, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate either, but having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth, and others, I cannot help but raise a voice on behalf of the Christian community. We are to a greater or lesser extent Christians in this country. We may not be very good Christians, but the idea that we cannot intervene on behalf of a Christian community because we might be discriminating strikes me as being absolutely unacceptable and appalling. I hope that the Government will take close notice of that and think about this serious issue.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his moving speech. He spoke with his typical passion, and the way he presented the arguments and the accounts he gave have certainly had a great effect on me. I think that he has done a great service to the Committee by drawing the plight of Christians in the Middle East to our attention. My noble friend Lord Forsyth invited me to tear up my speech before he had actually had an opportunity to hear it, and of course he invited me to do it while I am currently enjoying the privilege of the company of the Chief Whip, who perhaps is little worried that I might take my noble friend’s advice.

I feel very strongly about this. We cannot be anything other than moved by the brutality and evil that we are seeing unleashed in the Middle East by Daesh. I have seen something of the situation for myself on a personal visit to Zahlé, which is the capital city of the Bekaa Valley and a Christian community. I am acutely aware of the pressures to which people are subject out there. However, I cannot accept that this Government are not doing everything they can; we are leading the way. We are in the week—tomorrow, I think—when the Prime Minister will host a conference on Syria here in London, just across the way. He will urge other people to step up to the mark. A DfID report pointed out that Britain is paying more than its fair share. It recognised that we are paying 226% of our international obligation in terms of cash to support people in the region. We are hosting the event and acting diplomatically by urging for a solution to the crisis, and of course we are also acting militarily in the region.

We need to put on the record some of these points because I think some myths are arising within the Christian community, and I say this very carefully as a member of that community. Some myths are emerging about where the discrimination occurs. We are not saying that Christians will not be considered but that they will be considered on an individual basis, and the criteria we are looking at, particularly within the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement scheme, include women and girls at risk, those in need of serious medical care, and the survivors of torture and violence. Of course, in all the accounts we have heard about, they would certainly seem to be people who would qualify under that definition by what they have suffered and what they have experienced when they present to the authorities rather than by a general description. That is the central case we have put. At the moment, the basic principle is that applicants for refugee status must establish their need for protection on an individual basis, and for that reason we do not think that putting this to the Supreme Court is necessarily the right way. We believe that under the current rules, we have the ability to help the people who are in need.

We also need to put on the record at this point that the people who are actually suffering the greatest brutality at the hands of Daesh are fellow Muslims in the region—and the Yazidis, the Kurdish groups, that are there as well. They are suffering, too, and our prime driving force when providing international humanitarian protection, which is what it is, is on the basis of need. That will continue to be our position.

I am very happy to meet noble Lords who have an interest in this area, with officials, to ensure that our system is sufficiently sensitive to understand what is happening on the ground—and the accounts of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the experiences of the Bishop of Aleppo. We want that understanding so that it can inform our decision-making and ensure that our system is correct and appropriate. I reiterate that those Christians who are female, at risk of persecution, survivors of torture and/or violence are exactly the people that our systems of humanitarian aid in the region and our systems of relocation to this country are designed to help.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I entirely accept what he says about Muslims being subject to horrors as well as Christians, but could he deal with the point that the problem for Christians is that they cannot go to the official camps because they fear for their safety, because, once again, they are a minority? Is there any possibility of creating some kind safe haven? That in itself may create a further security problem for them. The genocide point is that it would enable immediate action to be taken.

[Lord Bates]

Certainly, the situation is that we would take families from within the camps and from the surrounding areas. It is not exclusively from the camps; it is those who are identified as being in greatest need. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raises an interesting point on the camps. I shall certainly feed that back to the department and seek some reassurance, and perhaps write to him and other noble Lords on what protections are arranged in the camps where DfID and others are involved to be sensitive to the needs of Christians.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I thank my noble friend Lady Cox, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Dubs, Lord Marlesford and Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for their contributions to the debate and for supporting the amendment. I thank the Minister as well for the characteristic way in which he has tried to deal with the arguments that have been raised during our debate.

He mentioned the conference that will be taking place tomorrow. Last week I attended a briefing that was hosted by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development. Throughout the presentation, not once was the position of minorities mentioned. I specifically raised that at the end of the presentation and the Secretary of State was helpful in her response, but it was not a presentation about events on the ground; it was about money being provided in humanitarian relief and aid. Important though that is, it is not the subject of the amendment and it is not the subject of my concern. I pay tribute to the Government for what they have done by way of humanitarian aid and I agree with them that countries such as Germany, which is co-hosting the conference, need to do more on that front and that we need to tackle these problems at source. Until we rectify some of the reasons why people are being driven out of their homeland, we will continue to see this exodus of biblical proportions.

The Minister and I are on the same page on that. I agree with what the Government are doing in that respect, but money and aid are not the same as recognising what is happening on the ground as a genocide. That is why I cited the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe last week. We will see what the European Parliament decides today, but other national Parliaments, the 75 Members of both Houses, and the Motion referred to by my noble friend in the House of Commons last week say something altogether different, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said he was ashamed that this debate was necessary at all. So am I in many respects; we should not need to be debating this.

The Supreme Court is different from the Government. It is one step aside. If there is no evidence to demonstrate that there is genocide then the Supreme Court would say that. The Justices of the Supreme Court would make that determination and nothing further would have to happen. But if it decided that there was a prima facie case of genocide, then it would kick-start all the other things that need to happen, especially the special status that would then be given to those groups who had been targeted. Yes, they include Christians, but not Christians alone. They would be prioritised because they are victims of genocide. That would be the reason.

I am grateful for what the noble Lord said about meeting those of us who proposed the amendment tonight. I welcome that and certainly I would be happy to take part in discussions between now and Report, but it is important that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Justice and DfID, which the Minister referred to, are also part and parcel of that discussion. I know that some of the pressures against doing something on this issue have come from other departments.

We were told during this brief debate that we should recognise the magnitude of this catastrophe, but people had no idea of the scale of what is happening. There cannot be decent societies in the Middle East without plurality, diversity, tolerance and respect. Surely those have to be the reasons why we put this at the very top of the agenda. I have said before that Einstein’s definition of insanity is simply doing the same thing over and over again. Whatever military campaigns we have, however necessary it may be to engage in military action, will not fundamentally change things on the ground. What marks us out as different from organisations such as ISIS is our belief in the rule of law. Surely this goes to the very heart of what it means to believe in the rule of law and to uphold conventions that we are signatories to and which impose on us a duty to protect and to prosecute.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I also give notice that I intend to bring this back on Report if we are unable to make appropriate progress.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

234C: Schedule 9, page 125, line 30, after “person” insert “in England”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

234G: Schedule 9, page 126, line 24, at end insert—
“After paragraph 2 insert—
“2A (1) Paragraph 1(1)(g) or (ga) does not prevent the provision of support or assistance under a relevant provision to a person to whom paragraph 1 would otherwise apply by virtue of paragraph 7B if—
(a) conditions A and B are satisfied in relation to that person, and(b) condition C, D or E is satisfied in relation to that person.(2) In sub-paragraph (1) “relevant provision” means—
(a) section 23C, 23CZA or 23CA of the Children Act 1989,(b) regulations under section 23D of that Act, or(c) section 24A or 24B of that Act.(3) Condition A is that—
(a) the person has made an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and(b) where regulations made by the Secretary of State require that the application must be of a kind specified in the regulations for this condition to be satisfied, the application is of that kind.(4) Condition B is that—
(a) the application is the first application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom that the person has made, or(b) where regulations under sub-paragraph (3)(b) require that the application must be of a kind specified in the regulations for condition A to be satisfied, the application is the first application of that kind that the person has made.(5) Condition C is that the application has not been determined or withdrawn.
(6) Condition D is that—
(a) the application has been refused,(b) the person could bring an appeal under section 82(1) against the refusal (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and(c) if the person brought such an appeal, it would not be one that, by virtue of section 92(6), would have to be continued from outside the United Kingdom. (7) Condition E is that—
(a) the application has been refused,(b) the person has appealed under section 82(1) against the refusal,(c) the appeal is not one that, by virtue of section 92(6), must be continued from outside the United Kingdom, and(d) the appeal is pending within the meaning of section 104.(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for circumstances in which—
(a) a person is to be treated as having made an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (despite not having made one), or(b) a person is to be treated as not having made such an application where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the application made is vexatious or wholly without merit.””

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

234P: Schedule 9, page 127, line 23, at end insert—
“Seventh class of ineligible person: primary carer without leave to enter or remain7C (1) Paragraph 1 applies to a person in England (“P”) if—
(a) P is the primary carer of a British citizen (“the relevant British citizen”),(b) the relevant British citizen is residing in the United Kingdom,(c) the relevant British citizen would be unable to reside in the United Kingdom or in another EEA State if P were required to leave the United Kingdom,(d) if circumstances were not as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c), under the Immigration Act 1971 P would require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but would not have such leave, and(e) P is not an asylum-seeker.(2) Paragraph 1 also applies to the dependant of a person to whom that paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In making for the purposes of this Schedule or regulations made under it a determination as to whether sub-paragraph (1)(c) applies in relation to P, a person may rely on—
(a) a document of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or(b) information or guidance provided by the Secretary of State for the purposes of such a determination.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

234R: Schedule 9, page 127, line 28, after “7B(1)” insert “or 7C(1)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

234Y: Schedule 9, page 128, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for support to be provided to a person (“P”)—
(a) to whom paragraph 1 applies by virtue of paragraph 7B(1) or 7C(1), and(b) who it appears to a person specified in the regulations may be destitute,until a person by whom support may be provided under arrangements by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is able to determine whether such support should be provided to P.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

235C: Schedule 9, page 129, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
“( ) who would otherwise be eligible for support or assistance under section 23C, 23CZA or 23CA of the Children Act 1989, under regulations under section 23D of that Act or under section 24A or 24B of that Act,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

235J: Schedule 9, page 129, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Condition B is that—
(a) the person is destitute, (b) the person could bring an appeal under section 82(1) (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and(c) if the person brought an appeal under section 82(1), it would not be one that, by virtue of section 92(6), would have to be continued from outside the United Kingdom.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

236ZA: Schedule 9, page 130, line 31, leave out “or 7B” and insert “, 7B or 7C”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, first, there was a letter of 24 November which I think will answer a lot of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It went to all council leaders and was on the dispersal of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and it was jointly from the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In fact it set out, as the noble Baroness requested, what financial support was available and encouraged local authorities to participate in the scheme. I will make sure that she gets a copy of that letter and that it is also sent to other members of the Committee.

These amendments raise important issues concerning Clauses 39 to 43. These provisions are intended to underpin new arrangements for the transfer of children, which we are developing together with the Local Government Association, the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government. We know that the crisis in Syria and events in the Middle East, north Africa and beyond have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of migrants. Many of them are arriving in the UK, particularly in Kent. There are now 900 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the care of Kent County Council, nearly 300 of whom have been placed with other local authorities. This has placed significant pressure on the council and its children’s services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, acknowledged.

I thank all those in Kent for the excellent response which they have shown. The Government are clear that wider arrangements need to be made to support the county and ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children get the support they need and are appropriately safeguarded. Additional funding has been made available to the local authorities which take responsibility from Kent County Council for caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

We hope that the new transfer arrangements will remain voluntary. However, Clauses 39 to 43 will underpin those arrangements in England if necessary. Clause 39 introduces a new power to make it easier to transfer unaccompanied migrant children from one local authority to another. Clause 40 will enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to provide information about the support and accommodation provided to children in their care. This will inform the new transfer arrangements. Clause 41 will enable the Secretary of State to direct the provision of written reasons as to why a local authority refuses to comply with a request to accept responsibility for an unaccompanied migrant child from another local authority area.

Clause 42 will enable the Secretary of State, if necessary, to require local authorities to co-operate in the transfer of unaccompanied migrant children from one local authority to another. Clause 43 will enable regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to make similar provision in relation to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland for the transfer of unaccompanied migrant children. I will come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in a moment.

Amendment 236ZJ would make detailed statutory provision for the use of the new powers. I agree with much of the thinking behind the proposed new clause, which raises several issues for which the new arrangements will need to make provision and which will need to be taken into account. But we do not consider that it would be helpful to make such provision in the Bill. Many of the issues on which we are currently working with the Local Government Association and others are designed to provide the optimum arrangements for both local authorities and the children concerned.

We agree that issues such as proper continuity in the process for considering the child’s asylum claim or immigration application will need to be addressed, as will the continuity of the social care and educational provision made for them. Any regulations made or any scheme prepared by the Secretary of State to underpin the new transfer arrangements will need to provide clarity as to roles, responsibilities, timescales and other relevant factors. This will be the focus of the continuing joint work with the Local Government Association and others. We think that it is right to retain flexibility within primary legislation to allow that work to continue and to arrive at solutions which meet the needs of the children and of the local authorities that will be responsible for their care.

Amendments 236ZF and 236ZG require consultation across government and with local authorities before regulations are made under Clauses 39 to 42. I am happy to give assurances that such consultation is continuing. Amendment 236ZH requires that a scheme under Clause 42 should specify the provision of resources. I am happy to give an assurance that funding arrangements will remain integral to the work of developing and implementing the new transfer arrangements.

Amendments 237 and 238, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would require the consent of the devolved legislatures before regulations under Clause 43 could be made, subject to the affirmative procedure, making similar provision in relation to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland for the transfer of unaccompanied migrant children. This important issue was raised by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill. Immigration is a reserved matter and the transfer of migrant children is not an area in which Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland have legislative competence. Their consent is not required for the UK to legislate in this area. However, we have been liaising, and will continue to liaise, with the devolved Administrations to see how the transfer arrangements, which we hope can be voluntary, might be extended to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We will continue to work closely with them on these issues, but we are clear that we must make statutory arrangements if necessary.

[Lord Wigley]

Will the Minister reflect on the fact that although the power may be reserved for the transfer of children, the responsibilities and the powers associated with those responsibilities to undertake safeguarding and to look after those children rest, almost entirely, in Wales with the National Assembly, in Scotland with the Parliament, and in Northern Ireland with the Assembly—and to the extent that it is devolved to local authorities, with local authorities? Therefore, is it not sensible to have written into the Bill that such consultation should take place in advance? Just landing it on the National Assembly without any prior consultation, seems, to say the least, to be cavalier. Is that the way in which co-operative politics should be working?

[Lord Bates]

I do not think that that would happen; it is certainly not what is intended. We intend that there should be full consultation with the devolved Administrations on these matters, and we hope that a voluntary scheme can be arrived at. I make the general point that we all agree that Kent, in particular, is bearing an unfair share of the burden of caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We often hear in this House many fine words from local authorities but, so far, only six or seven out of 440 have stepped up to be part of the scheme on a voluntary basis. That is why we want to include this provision. It would be wonderful if more local authorities in Wales and in England came forward to take some of these children about whom we have talked so much tonight as being in need and share the responsibility, but if they do not, it is important that the Secretary of State has this power.

[Lord Teverson]

I ask the Minister on a practical basis and in a positive way what channels the Government recommend that individual families who want to help should use.

[Lord Bates]

There will be a national register for those who want to help, in particular, with Syrian children. That is being brought together. That is a different arrangement. The children and families who we are currently taking from Syria are in acute need, often medical need, or have suffered violence. They are not those who would be most suitable for a room in someone’s home—they need particular attention. Further down the line, as we continue to help people fleeing that dreadful situation, we will want to take up those offers that have been generously made from charities, individuals and churches. That is why the national register is being put together, and it will be overseen by Richard Harrington, who is the Minister responsible for the Syrian vulnerable persons scheme.

[Lord Wigley]

I am sorry to come back on this, but the Minister referred to the fact that only a handful of local authorities have come forward. I happen to know, because I am active with the refugee committee in my home town of Caernarfon, that Gwynedd County Council has been trying to help in this regard. Gwynedd County Council and other local authorities in Wales come under the National Assembly for Wales. There may well be a systematic breakdown here because of a lack of consultation with the National Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, et cetera, which are the interface with local authorities in those countries. Will the Minister look at this between now and later stages to ensure a systematic approach so that everybody is brought in and those with good will and a wish to help are facilitated to undertake exactly that help?

[Lord Bates]

Yes, that is something that I am happy to undertake to do. To clarify the situation, the six local authorities I referred to were just for the Kent dispersal scheme. It is invidious to single out particular local authorities. I was making the more general point that it would be wonderful if more local authorities came forward. We certainly want to ensure that the generous offers made, to which the noble Lord referred, are fully explored, so that help can be provided where it is offered.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it might be invidious, but I am going to do it, although in a related context. On the call for local authorities to assist with providing accommodation for refugee families, I am ashamed that the leader of my local authority of Richmond upon Thames explained that it was not possible to assist because it is not a housing authority. I think that that is using technical language which could be applied very widely across the country, but has not deterred others.

The statement from the Local Government Association on the current position, issued especially in response to the calls for admitting 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, starts by calling for the programme to focus on family reunification, which takes us back to debates we just had. The statement refers to the current financial arrangements for taking on full Children Act responsibilities and funding the leaving care support. It says that these are currently due to expire at the end of March. The statement was dated 27 January and I would guess that the Minister has no further news about that—he shakes his head. Clearly that is worrying the LGA and it must worry us all. Of course, I agree that reaching a consensus and partnership—the word I was struggling for before—is the most important way of addressing this. As I have said before in this Chamber, the costs would be considerable. There is the shortfall in the number of foster carers. Whatever the number of altruistic people who offer to take children, there is no avoiding the cost of support for them in undertaking an extremely difficult job in looking after these children. The LGA also says that a regional approach to resettling refugees rather than a case-by-case model controlled centrally would be more effective in utilising the funding for local authorities to support resettlement.

The Minister answered Amendment 236ZF but I do not think he said whether those factors will be included in guidance. Given the hour, I will not ask him to continue—but he made a sort of semaphore indication that he will write on that point. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has reminded us that this clause is about forced destitution. Is it right that in a country such as this, which is one of the wealthiest in the world and upholds humane and civilised standards of decency, we should leave people without adequate resources believing that it is a way to somehow force them to leave the country? At Second Reading, I rehearsed some of the arguments. I mentioned Asylum Link Merseyside, of which I am a patron, and the work it has done that demonstrates that that simply does not work, because when parents, rightly or wrongly, think that their children’s lives will be at risk if they return home, they will generally consider that becoming destitute in the United Kingdom is the better option available to them. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right to ask whether we wish this clause to remain part of the Bill and to argue why it should not stand part.

Asylum Link Merseyside works with asylum seekers, but as my noble friend Lord Sandwich and others have reminded the Committee, the Home Office commissioned its own report into these things—I think that the Home Office study covered a cohort of about 116 families. It found that the rate of absconding was 39% for those in the Section 9 pilot but only 21% in the comparable control group who remained supported. Only one family in the pilot was successfully removed, compared to nine successful removals in the control group, and,

“there was no significant increase in the number of voluntary returns … of unsuccessful asylum seeking families”.

That is why the Home Office concluded that Section 9 should not be used on a blanket basis. Removing Clause 37 would remove something that we know does not work, that is likely to be more costly, that is an inefficient support system and that will clearly, as others have said, put the welfare of children at risk.

The Bill will establish a highly bureaucratic system which will be burdensome to administer. Local authorities will remain the body to which destitute refused asylum seekers who have fallen through the safety net turn for support. They will have to conduct eligibility tests and assessments to see whether support is required in order to safeguard the welfare of a particular child. In these cash-strapped days, do we really believe that local authorities will be in a position to do that? The complexity of these new arrangements means that families with children are likely to fall through the gaps in the system and find themselves destitute, at least temporarily. The consequences of refused asylum seekers being left without support, even for short periods of time, is extremely serious as it causes illness and complicates existing health problems.

Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, were able to attend a briefing a few weeks ago which was given by, among others, Still Human Still Here. I asked then for some illustrations of how this could work out in practice. I shall give two brief examples. Still Human Still Here mentioned a 2012 serious case review which involved an asylum seeker who developed a brain infection and could not look after her child. The boy starved to death and the mother died two days later. The family became destitute during the transition from asylum to mainstream support, leaving the family,

“dependent upon ad hoc payments by local agencies”.

The review expressed,

“concern about the adverse consequences on vulnerable children and the resulting additional pressure on local professional agencies”,

when support was cut off.

In 2011 a serious case review involving child Z noted that the circumstances of the child’s mother, a refused asylum seeker facing removal with a life-threatening illness and caring for a young child with few support networks,

“would challenge any individual's coping strategies”.

It stressed that the,

“need for high levels of support for someone with such vulnerabilities was clear”,

and the absence of this support was a major factor leading to the woman’s death and her child needing to be looked after.

Both these cases highlight the consequences of leaving vulnerable families without support, and I therefore have some questions for the Minister. The Government’s proposals leave the detail of the new support provisions, including the level of support, to regulations. First, will the Government provide an assurance that the level and type of support provided under Section 95A or new paragraphs 10A and 10B of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act will meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers and that the housing provided will be appropriate for vulnerable children and their families?

Secondly, the Government have stated that it will not be possible to apply for Section 95A support after the prescribed grace period, which is 21 days for single adults and 90 days for families with children. Will the Government provide an assurance that the regulations which permit applications outside the grace period will include changes of circumstance, such as when asylum seekers who were previously supported by friends or family become destitute or when asylum seekers encounter a barrier to return after the grace period is over?

Thirdly, will the Government consider amending language which prevents local authorities providing support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 where,

“there are reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”,

as it is likely to leave families destitute for considerable periods of time while responsibility is determined?

Fourthly, and penultimately, while local authorities will be able to provide accommodation and subsistence support when they are satisfied that it is needed to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child, regulations will be laid specifying factors which the local authority must or must not take into account in making this decision. What factors do the Government intend to specify must or must not be taken into account?

Lastly, will the Government provide an assurance that the best interests of the child, which were referred to by the Minister’s noble and learned friend in earlier exchanges, shall be a primary consideration in the operation of any actions concerning children in the Bill —a point that I think will be reflected on in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said earlier—and that the new mechanisms of support set up in the Bill will ensure that every child has a right to,

“a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development”?

Those words are required by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I hope the Government will consider bringing forward their own amendment at least to put that in the Bill.

I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer those five questions now, although I hope the Box will be able to provide him with some response. However, at least between now and Report, I hope that he will give reassurance to all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate supporting the excellent points that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made in moving that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, as we now embark on Part 5, which deals with levels of support and the treatment of migrants, it might be helpful if I put some general points on the record. First, I readily accept that we are talking about a vulnerable group of people. Irrespective of whether their asylum claims are upheld, they have travelled from another country and find themselves in a country where they often have difficulties with the language. One does not minimise in any way that they are a vulnerable group.

Secondly, when the Immigration and Asylum Act was passed by the previous Labour Government in 1999, the provision under Section 95(5) for people in need was a recognition of our international obligations to provide a basic standard of care for people who had applied for asylum in our country and for our protection while their case was being considered. I do not think that it was ever the intention of the Government at that time, as evidenced by their attempt to reform Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that this would be an open-ended commitment, irrespective of whether the person was within the asylum process or had gone through that process and found that their claim was not upheld. It was not intended for that support to continue ad infinitum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Before the noble Lord moves on, when he says that they will be supported in the same way, does he mean that it will be with the same level of cash?

[Lord Bates]

The short answer to that is yes.

Amendment 233 would require the Secretary of State to provide failed asylum seekers with a caseworker, a named contact and legal advice. It would also require the appointment of an independent person to report on the financial assistance available to failed asylum seekers who leave voluntarily, and on contact with welfare organisations in the country of return.

I agree as to the importance of these issues but not as to the need for this amendment. We provide generous financial assistance to incentivise returns and assist with reintegration in the country of origin. This can be up to £2,000 per person for families and up to £1,500 in support for a single person, in addition to removal expenses and their travel and transport costs such as flights. We also provide help with travel arrangements and resettlement needs. Some 143 families comprising 435 people and 469 single failed asylum seekers left under the assisted voluntary return scheme from 1 April to 31 December 2015, which suggests that the arrangements are working.

I will address some of the specific questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the no right of appeal. I made the point that the wider facts will have been contested in the earlier appeals and examined by the Home Office caseworker, and that therefore a genuine obstacle would be easy to understand —in other words, that there is medical evidence that the person is not fit to travel or that they do not have the necessary travel documents to do so.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it is not quite as straightforward as just saying that there will be medical evidence; there might be a view on what weight should be attached to that medical evidence and whether it meets the criteria. It cannot all be effectively a tick-box exercise, although I almost get the impression it is being portrayed as such.

[Lord Bates]

It is certainly not a tick-box exercise. Of course, a statement that someone is medically unfit and unable to travel is a fact that can be proved by a medical practitioner and which can be evidenced. The fact that the documents are not in place for travel can be evidenced by the absence of those documents; therefore we contest that the key facts can be established as to whether there is a genuine obstacle to the person leaving, without necessarily reopening the whole case for review.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was generous enough again to recognise in connection with the Azure card, on which he has faithfully spoken over many years in this place, that we have made some improvements. I will refer back the comment on the specific chain he mentioned, the easyFoodstore—or is it the easyJet store?—which has food for low prices, because that ought to be considered. The list is not an exhaustive one: it can be changed and added to, provided that the companies themselves are willing to join the system. I will certain explore that further.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked whether the 90-day grace period would be extended if there is a change of circumstances. The person must genuinely ensure that there is an obstacle to return. An example might be if they did not receive timely notice of the asylum refusal or a failed appeal. The 90-day grace period for families will enable us to work effectively with families and local authorities to encourage and enable returns. Assisted voluntary return for families is a scheme for families comprising a maximum of two adult parents and at least one child under the age of 18. Families who leave the UK under this scheme can qualify for up to £2,000 per family member. A key difference between that scheme and the previous one— the test that was done under Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act—is that that was a dry, correspondence-based exercise, whereas with family returns we are talking about a family returns engagement officer, who works with them to ensure that provision is in place for them and their family both while they are in the UK and in the country to which they will return to.

On the regulations and whether they will be affirmative, we are very conscious as to what the committee has said, and of course we always tend to show great deference to that committee. However, I will have to come back on Report to confirm how we will deal with this. It simply requires a process we need to go through as regards consulting other people with interests across government to get approval or not for that type of thing. I feel as though I am letting my poker face go again—I have never played poker, and now I am probably figuring out why. Noble Lords have guessed it. In any case, we take the committee seriously and will come back with an amendment to—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I will not start to play poker with the Minister. Will there be more details about the contents of the regulations before Report?

[Lord Bates]

More details will come out. We are working very closely with the local authorities and the Department for Education on what the guidance should be on this. We have to get that joined-up system there to ensure protection, particularly for the families, and work out how it will work. That process is ongoing. As set out in my letter of 21 January and in the substantial document, the review is current. I realise that we had a significant debate on the level of asylum support on 27 October. On page 2, paragraph 6 states:

“As Lord Bates confirmed in the House of Lords on 27 October 2015, we continue to keep the support rate under review”.

We have engaged with a number of stakeholders, including Still Human Still Here, Refugee Action, the Children’s Society and Student Action for Refugees and we will study the results carefully. The review should report in March or April and will provide detailed reasons for the conclusion when it comes through.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the reduction in the number of migrants will be. An impact statement is attached, where the noble Lord will see that we anticipate that an estimated 20% of the failed cohort will return. That is the assumption we have used in the impact assessment. It is not an easy estimate to make, however, for the reasons the noble Lord gave. It cannot be judged on just this one measure but needs to be judged by the wider measures in the Bill, which will make it more difficult for people to rent accommodation, drive or gain employment if they have no right to be here. It is part of the package but that is the assumption.

I come to discontinuation of support. If there is a genuine obstacle, support will continue. If a pregnant woman is not due to give birth within six weeks of the expiry point of the 90-day grace period, she will generally be fit to fly and therefore not eligible for new Section 95A support. If that were not the case, there would be medical grounds to cite a genuine obstacle to being able to travel.

[Lord Rosser]

I cited what I understand to be the figures from the family returns process. A significant number of the families involved are not dealt with within the three-month period. I suppose I am asking whether the Government agree with those figures, which I understand came from a government analysis. If it is accepted that, under that process, a significant number of families cannot with the best will in the world complete the process within three months, what happens under the 90-day period if there are likewise families with Section 95 support who cannot complete the process for leaving within the 90 days? Or is the Government’s argument that everybody should finish the process within 90 days and any reference to what is happening under the family returns process is somehow not relevant?

[Lord Bates]

That is, of course, how it is at the moment, but we will bring forward in the regulations means by which we believe we can improve the efficiency of that process and reduce a lot of the complexity in the system, which everyone wants to see removed. That will, in turn, speed up the process so that the vast majority of claims fall well within the 90-day period. That is our intention but it needs to be kept under review so that it is the case.

[Lord Rosser]

We hope that is achieved and that we get a quicker process. At the moment, however, unless what I am saying about the family returns process is wrong, there is evidence that it will not be possible to complete the process for a significant number of families within 90 days. All I am asking is: if that is the case —and there is no suggestion that the families themselves have contributed to the fact that the process has not been completed in time—will that Section 95 support be continued beyond the 90 days?

[Lord Bates]

Every case will be different but in a normal case, if someone cannot leave within 90 days, there is probably a genuine obstacle to their doing so. They may not be well enough or they may not have travel documents, in which case they would come into the category of having a genuine obstacle and, therefore, support could continue under new Section 95A.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

If a pregnant lady is to be deported within six weeks of the birth, and if flights can be arranged, what arrangements will be made in her destination? She will need medical attention. Might voluntary organisations be able to help? What arrangements can be made to ensure that she is well cared for on arrival?

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to set that out in a little more detail. I think it would be helpful to say how we envisage that working. The plan is for the family engagement officer—who is a key figure in this, working with the family to manage their return—to have cognisance of their circumstances not only while here but when they return, so that will be taken into account and will be something that we look at. I will write more on that; I am happy to do so.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, while we are on this subject, the noble Lord, in response to my Amendment 233, talked about the current process. The amendment was tabled after discussion with the Red Cross in particular and other organisations that commented on the need for the items set out in the amendment, namely,

“a caseworker … a named point of contact … and … legal advice”.

The part of the amendment dealing with a review refers to,

“the level of financial support provided to failed asylum seekers when they leave the United Kingdom, and … the level of contact with organisations in the country of return necessary for the welfare of the failed asylum seekers”,

which was very much the point my noble friend was making. The Minister has just described a caseworker and named person. I am not clear whether this is intended to be a change from the current process or whether his notes are defending the current process. If it is the latter, the comments I received which led to this amendment indicate that the current process, which the Minister described, is not working.

While I am on my feet, I am afraid I must take the Minister back to the Azure card. He said that, generally, support would be in the form of accommodation and cash. What are the exceptions to that?

[Lord Bates]

First, I am a huge admirer of the work of the Red Cross and pay tribute to all that it does in this area. The noble Baroness referred to my charitable endeavours over the recess. Last year, I raised £90,000 for projects for the International Red Cross in China. My response to the point about the Red Cross study is that we are engaging with it. Home Office officials are in contact with the Red Cross and we are working through its recommendations, which I have read. There is some question—which we need to understand better—about the cohort. I think that the Red Cross looked at some 60 case studies. The majority—all but five or six, I think—were failed asylum seekers, but there was not really sufficient explanation of why they had failed. Suffice to say that we take this very seriously. We want to engage with organisations such as the Red Cross so that we move forward sensitively.

I have said that I will write on the point about the Azure card and perhaps I could include the exceptions. With that, I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation and withdraw their opposition to the clause standing part.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could ask one question. A number of noble Lords have said that when this sort of scheme was tried before, where, basically, failed asylum seekers were forced into destitution, not only were there fewer returns than in the control group but more people absconded and disappeared than in the control group. I understand the Minister’s arguments about saving government money for more deserving cases and that if somebody has exhausted the asylum appeals process you cannot keep giving them resources, but surely the most important thing is to ensure that the people who should not be in this country are no longer in this country. When this was tried before, the evidence was that starving failed asylum seekers into leaving the country is counter- productive. The Minister has not answered that question.

[Lord Bates]

That is one of the reasons why, in the preceding group, we talked about the policy of deport first, appeal later. If people are appealing from outside the country, there is less of a risk that they will abscond. We should also note, when comparing this with the 2002 Act, the different way in which we now engage families in this situation—through caseworkers, through Migrant Help and by working with them to manage their return to the United Kingdom. There is also a very generous grant available to them—up to £2,000 per person in addition to travel costs—when they agree to do so. So judged in the round, within the wider package of things that we are trying to do in the Immigration Bill, we can actually see that that figure will improve. But I am sure that the noble Lord will hold us to account when those figures are published each year to see how we are doing.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that I put five questions to him. Although he has in his ministerial reply touched tangentially on some of those points, I wonder whether he would be good enough to confirm that he will write to me with a response to the particular points I made.

[Lord Bates]

I apologise if I did not address those questions specifically head-on. Of course, I am blessed with having a team of officials behind me who capture the gaps in my response. We have a track record, I think, of following up in some detail to plug those gaps so that Members have the information that they need to scrutinise the legislation before the House.

Clause 37 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, our Amendment 229 also addresses the issue of people who have been granted refugee status, humanitarian protection and various forms of leave to remain accessing mainstream benefits. I am sure that being able to work, and as a secondary to that being able to access mainstream benefits and accommodation, is what people in this situation want. They do not want to be supported. But delays in the Home Office in issuing biometric residence permits and delays at the DWP in issuing national insurance numbers so that people can get identity documents and thus establish a claim to benefits mean that the system is not working as it should.

Our amendment would not make as many changes as its length might suggest. The relevant addition to the definition of when,

“a claim for asylum is determined”,

are the lines,

“and the claimant or dependants of the claimant do not appear to the Secretary of State to be destitute”.

In other words, adding that in as another condition to be met, as it were. I can understand that it must be much easier to have an automatic time trigger for these things, but we have heard throughout the debate on this Bill how matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, and it seems that this is another occasion when that consideration should be applied.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving her amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the interests of time, perhaps I may first draw the attention of the Committee to my letter of 21 January and in particular to the accompanying document, Reforming Support for Migrants Without Immigration Status: The New System Contained in Schedules 8 and 9 to the Immigration Bill, and specifically to pages 10 to 12 which deal with the handover situation of people on support from the Home Office and moving them on to a local authority, and how that system can be improved.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I respect enormously for his humanitarian instincts, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the British Red Cross report. It was published on 13 January, I think, which is fairly recent in terms of government decision-making. We are engaging with the charity and we will have more to say on the report in due course.

At the heart of what the noble Baroness wants is whether we will agree to a meeting to look specifically at this issue. The next group of amendments is a significant one about children leaving care. I was going to suggest that we should have a meeting on that issue, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will probably find very helpful. I am happy to incorporate this specific point into that wider meeting, given that we already have five meetings coming up before Report. If that is helpful to her, I shall restrict my remarks to drawing attention to the document I have just mentioned and agreeing to combine this issue with those to be addressed in the meeting as a result of the next group of amendments.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so helpfully and the noble Lord for that positive response. I am happy for this to be taken as part of another meeting, although I hope that we will be able to include representatives of the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council since they both work with people who are in the moving-on period. I think that I referred to an earlier British Red Cross report rather than the one which has just been produced. I know that there are two reports which are relevant to our discussions so it is possible that I have muddled them up, but I was referring to a different report from that cited by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Anyway, that does not matter because the important thing is that we should sit down and talk about this. As I have said, I do not think that there is really any difference between us, but this has been going on for too long. I do not know what the answer is. It may be a longer time limit or it might be something else. If we can sit around a table, that would be very helpful.

[Lord Bates]

I should make one specific point that I need to put on to the record. It is not just a case of extending the time period, it is also about making sure that people apply for these benefits promptly. One of the figures cited in the 2014 British Red Cross report showed that of its sample of 16 individuals, only three had applied for welfare benefits within the first three weeks of being granted status. Part of the issue is getting people to apply earlier.

[Lord Judd]

The Minister has just put his finger on a good example of the difficulty here. He has said that it is important that people should apply promptly, but sometimes their mental condition and the state of confusion they are in makes that a totally unrealistic proposition unless there are families or friends who can take them through the whole process, as was the case with the couple I cited as an example earlier. People have to work hard on it. These are exactly the sort of points which should be taken up in the discussion that I am glad to hear the Minister is suggesting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I cannot let that stand. I certainly would not be guilty of doing that. I am simply saying that when there are delays in the system we need to look at all the parties to explore why. The one fact I presented was that only three out of 16 applied within the first three weeks. That could contribute to the need to examine why, and what extra help they need. I certainly was not blaming the victims. It is not about simply adding days on in the end and finding that even that is not enough, as we were talking previously about the grace period going up from 28 to 90 days. We need to look at the whole system so that people get the care they need when they need it and the system works effectively. That is what we are about.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am grateful for that. As I said I did not really believe that that was what the noble Lord meant. It might have sounded like it, so I am glad he has made it clear.

The Work and Pensions Committee said that 28 days is really very little time. It may be that the answer is not another fixed time limit, but I absolutely accept that we need to look at all the different aspects—the DWP, the Home Office and how people engage with them. On the basis that the Minister has very kindly offered to extend the meeting he was offering anyway, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

229ZA: Schedule 8, page 114, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) in section 134 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, omit subsection (5);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

230ZA: Schedule 8, page 117, line 33, leave out from “a” to end of line 36 and insert “condition imposed under Schedule 7 to the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

230C: Schedule 8, page 121, line 31, at end insert—
“In Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014 (excluded residential tenancy agreements), in paragraph 8 (accommodation provided by virtue of immigration provisions)—
(a) in paragraph (b) after “95” insert “or 95A”, and(b) in paragraph (c) after “98” insert “or 98A”.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 239B relates to asylum seekers who came to this country as children, who then progress into higher education. They are currently subject to the rules that provide for higher fees in education because they have come from abroad, so they face the charges that are faced by those who apply to come to this country, as though they were people living elsewhere.

I am seeking an amendment to the Bill to allow for those young people not to be subject to the charges faced by foreign students and, since they have come as asylum seekers and are living now in this country, being provided the protection and safe haven of this country, we might therefore provide for tuition fees to be charged at the lower rate that is charged to people in this country. I should have risen before my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I had not realised that my amendment was in this group. That is the basic argument being made for Amendment 239B.

I have direct experience of this because, as I think I have mentioned in the House before, there is a small foundation which gives bursaries to people who are particularly disadvantaged. A category of them are asylum seekers, so we are very conscious of the problems that young people have when they come to this country and are given a safe haven. They are then often the most diligent at sixth-form colleges and in further education, and go on to higher education, but they face this incredibly high bill, although they have very little resource at all. We can help them in the tiniest ways, but they are facing the increased fee as if they were a well-to-do person applying to come to study in this country from abroad. So we think that the Government might want to look at this matter.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am conscious of the time and that there has been some shuffling around and stern looks from the usual channels, who are looking to make progress. I hope your Lordships will bear with me when I say that it just happens that the way in which the scheduling has gone, we arrived at what is probably the most important group of amendments just before 7 pm. There are a huge number of people outside as well as inside this Chamber who need to understand what the 26 amendments that the Government have in this group, and of course the other amendments in it, would do. I need to put that on the record—that is a kind of clue to those people who are hovering that it may well be 15 minutes before I have done that. I hope that the House will bear with me and understand that we are talking about a very important group. I want to get those comments and explanations on the record so that they can be examined ahead of Report and our meeting.

To shorten somewhat what I will go through, I again refer noble Lords to my letter of 21 January and to the response explaining Schedules 8 and 9. I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to paragraphs 64 through to 76, and to appendix B. I have struck out some remarks of explanation in the areas covered in that document, which has been circulated and is in the public domain. I have also given an undertaking to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we will have a meeting on this—an opportunity to exchange views and take a little more time to look at the evidence in the period between Committee and Report.

Clause 38 and Schedule 9 make changes to local authority support in England for migrants without immigration status, under Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, while they establish a lawful basis to remain here or prior to their departure from the UK. Our public consultation on asylum support highlighted concerns that the framework provided by Schedule 3 and associated case law was complex and burdensome for local authorities to administer, and involved complicated assessments and continued litigation to establish what support should be provided and in what circumstances. The Public Bill Committee of the Commons heard similar concerns from local authority colleagues.

We are clear that we want to encourage and enable more migrants without any lawful basis to remain here to leave the UK in circumstances where they can do so, while retaining appropriate safeguards. We have also listened carefully to what local authorities have told us about the scope for simplifying and strengthening the current framework. In that context, we have also had engagement with the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and I will ensure that we get a readout from those discussions for our meeting.

Schedule 9 therefore makes two key changes to Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act. First, it simplifies the way in which local authorities assess and provide accommodation and subsistence for destitute families without immigration status. It enables local authorities to continue to provide, under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, for any other needs of a child or their family in order to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. Secondly, it prevents adult care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights and have established no lawful basis to remain here from accessing local authority support under the 1989 Act. It makes alternative provision for their accommodation, subsistence and other support before they leave the UK. It ensures that local authorities can still provide these care leavers with any social care support which they consider that the young adult needs during this period.

Immigration Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon has eloquently set out the reasons for her concerns about Clauses 17 and 18, which create an offence of driving when unlawfully in the UK and give powers to carry out searches relating to driving offences. The Bill provides a power for an authorised officer—police or immigration officers or third parties designated by the Secretary of State—to search premises, including a vehicle or residence, where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that an individual is in possession of a driving licence, is not lawfully resident and the licence is on the premises.

As has already been said, the National Black Police Association has expressed concern at the potential of these provisions to undermine vital work promoting good relations between police and the communities they serve, saying that they could result in a return to the days of sus laws and the police being seen as part of the Immigration Service. Evidence indicates that black and minority ethnic drivers are around twice as likely to be stopped as white drivers.

The situation will not have been made any easier by evidence given by the police to the Commons Public Bill Committee when, as my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon said, a Metropolitan Police chief superintendent explained that they already had a power to stop any vehicle to ascertain ownership and driver details and, having done that, they would then inquire into whether the driver had the authority to drive that vehicle. He went on to say that, to fall within the new provisions in the Bill that we are debating, the police would then most likely need to do a further check with the immigration authorities, which at that stage would give them reasonable grounds—but not necessarily proof—based on a search of the immigration database to believe that the person driving was an illegal immigrant. In other words, these clauses relating to driving could effectively result in adding a routine immigration check into a traffic-stop regime which many in black and minority ethnic groups already regard as operating in a discriminatory fashion.

The points that have been made by my noble friend Lady Lawrence, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and others about the impact of these two clauses on fostering distrust and disharmony between the police and the public require a full and considered response from the Government, including the Government’s assessment of the impact on community cohesion if they disagree with what has been said on these proposed measures. This is yet another potential example in the Bill of measures that are intended by the Government to encourage illegal migrants to depart, by making it harder for them to live and work here, having highly likely unintended adverse consequences—this time for the role of the police, community relations and racial harmony.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving his amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss these important matters. Perhaps I may make some general remarks on the clauses, setting out the Government’s position, and then seek to respond to the very legitimate questions raised by noble Lords.

Clause 17 provides the power for an authorised officer, such as an immigration or police officer, to search people and premises and seize a UK driving licence held by a person not lawfully resident in the UK. It is envisaged that the power will be used primarily by immigration officers as an adjunct to their normal enforcement activities where immigration offenders are apprehended in the community. This represents the best opportunity to remove from circulation UK driving licences which are being used by illegal migrants. This power can be exercised only where there are reasonable grounds to conduct a search: it cannot be used to randomly target members of the public. The power contained in the clause will be used by the police only as a part of targeted, intelligence-led policing.

The Government are clear that this clause will not undermine their work in reforming police stop-and-search powers, nor will it result in random stop and searches being conducted by immigration officials. Home Office immigration enforcement officers would use the power where they, for example, visit a property or place of employment in response to intelligence received. With the exception of a constable, authorised officers must generally also obtain the consent of a senior officer before conducting a search of premises, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so. A seized licence must be returned to the holder if a decision is taken not to revoke it, or where the holder successfully appeals against a revocation.

Amendment 160 would therefore add an extra constraint on when the power to enter premises to search for a driving licence may be used without the authorisation of a senior officer. This is unnecessary. Clause 17 provides that before searching premises an authorised officer must obtain the authorisation of a senior officer, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so. Amendments 161 and 162 are also unnecessary. The arrangements introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 for the revocation of UK driving licences held by illegal immigrants are well established and operating effectively. They are not subject to significant delays, which would warrant introducing hard and fast time limits for the retention of seized licences pending revocation action.

Amendment 162 would limit the ability to retain licences if they are revoked after being seized. This conflicts with one of the main aims of the clause: namely, to remove revoked licences from circulation. It is already a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to retain a revoked licence but, despite this, only a very small proportion are returned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Will the noble Lord tell your Lordships what will be done then to monitor whether we return to the stop-and-search regime that he described, where only one in 10 stops had any real legitimacy? Will there be accountability? Will statistics be published every year so we know how often the power has been used and how often it has been successful?

[Lord Bates]

Under one of the proposals introduced for stop-and-search powers, we are now collecting those data. The ability to make the statements that I have, about how stop and search has actually been reduced, is a very good thing. This is such a sensitive area but also one where I believe a significant amount of good work has been done in policing. We would not want anything in this to in any way undermine that wider effort to improve community cohesion and trust between the police and the communities which they serve. I would be very happy to organise a meeting with interested Peers between Committee and Report to explore this area further, to try to offer further reassurances and to hear more about any specific concerns.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

I do not think the noble Lord has really answered the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Lawrence or by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who was an experienced police officer in the Brixton area—he talked about the problems of the Brixton riots and so on. Whatever the intentions of the provisions, there are real concerns about what will happen in practice. Could he say a little more about that?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is right to point to the immense experience of many noble Lords who have spoken, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in policing and of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, in representing victims of crime over many years. That is why I am suggesting, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed, that we ought to look at this. Sometimes there is an overfocus on this particular element, without recognising the wider context of the Bill. This is not being targeted simply through stop-and-search powers but is consistent with the wider aim to reduce the ability of people who are here illegally to live a normal life while in the UK—such as by having bank accounts, being able to rent properties, being able to work and gain employment, or being able to gain a driving licence. In the wider context, it fits, but there are some specific concerns here. It is a very sensitive area. Therefore, I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss it further.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon. Our Amendments 160 to 162 are technical in nature, and so was the Minister’s response, so I will read Hansard with interest. The major issue is with Clause 17, where the Minister has not answered our concerns. He talked about justification for this being where the police stop somebody and then a match is found against a Home Office record. That implies that the police would have to carry out an immigration check on the individual to establish whether an immigration offence had been committed. They are being pushed into proactively enforcing immigration law in a way that they have not previously.

[Lord Bates]

Again, I defer to the noble Lord’s great experience, but I understand that that is part of normal practice when they establish the identity of the individual whom they have stopped for a suspected offence: that they try to establish that identity from the databases available to them.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, my understanding is that a routine check of the Home Office immigration database is not a normal part of a stop check.

The Minister says that the stop must not be based on race or ethnicity, but Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary research, to which I and other noble Lords referred, shows that drivers are being targeted on that basis. The Minister has not given the Committee any reassurance that things will be different under these powers. The Minister said that the Home Secretary, in addressing the National Black Police Association, admitted that a quarter of stop and searches by police are unlawful. The clauses extend the powers of the police to carry out stop and searches.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the Minister talked about monitoring. The fact is that police stops of vehicles under the Road Traffic Acts are not routinely recorded. This is something that we need to look into in the meeting with the Minister and other interested noble Lords, which I very much look forward to.

The Minister has heard from both sides here: from someone who has been a victim of racism and from someone who has previous experience of enforcing immigration law as a police officer, and the detrimental effect that that has had on police-community relations. I was in the Brixton riots, I was behind a plastic shield, and I felt the anger of the black community in those days towards the police. I do not want us to go back to anything like that situation—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, bearing in mind the greater availability of firearms these days. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet us to discuss those things, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in their Amendment 163. It does not seem an absolute offence. Therefore, Amendment 163 seems reasonable.

We have Amendments 164, 169, 171, 172, and 173 in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendment 164 would add to new Section 24D by placing a time limit on the time taken to make a decision whether to prosecute, when someone has had their vehicle detained, having been arrested for driving when unlawfully in the United Kingdom, of one month from the date of arrest. It could well be that the person arrested is a professional driver, who relies on the vehicle for their livelihood and, if that person turns out to be innocent of the offence, it could have serious implications for him if the vehicle is not returned to him promptly.

Amendment 169 is designed to restrict the ability to detain the vehicle if it belongs to a third party. Could the Minister clarify whether it is intended to detain vehicles innocently lent to others who are subsequently found to be in the UK illegally?

Amendments 171, 172 and 173 are to query the issue of all premises warrants, in new Section 24E(6)(b) and 24E(7), to search any premises owned or controlled by the person arrested for driving illegally to detain the car he was driving—particularly, as stated in new Section 24E(10), when such an all premises warrant cannot be issued in Scotland. Can the Minister explain why such a wide-ranging warrant is necessary in England and Wales but not in Scotland?

The Government also have Amendments 174 and 175 in this group, which widens the power even further, not just to all premises but not restricting such a power to a constable only, which is what was in the Bill originally. Surely, the power is broad enough as it is.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in the group, so I shall speak to those first and then turn to the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick.

The government amendments in this group relate to the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations governing the detention of vehicles used in committing the new offence of driving when unlawfully in the UK and to the criminal justice procedure for the offence in Scotland. Amendments 165 to 168 remove unnecessary references to the procedure applicable to solemn criminal procedure in Scotland, as opposed to summary procedure, since the offence is a summary-only offence in Scotland. Clause 18 provides a regulation-making power covering the destination of any proceeds from a vehicle being forfeited and disposed of. Amendment 170 extends this power to enable regulations to specify the destination of the proceeds of charges made for detaining a vehicle. This is necessary to ensure that it is possible for the charges to cover the cost of detaining the vehicle to be paid either to the police or to a private contractor who is detaining a vehicle on behalf of the police. Clause 18 provides that all premises and multi-entry warrants can be applied for in Scotland by an immigration officer. Amendments 174 and 175 remove this possibility to ensure compliance with the Scottish criminal justice system, which does not currently include provision for either all premises or multiple entry warrants. I invite noble Lords’ support for these amendments at the point when they are moved.

I turn to the issues raised in the other amendments. Amendment 163 would have the effect of introducing a presumption that ignorance of immigration status provides a defence against conviction. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants will be fully cognisant of their status, having entered the country unlawfully or deliberately overstayed their visa. The requirements imposed by the amendment are open to vague and inconsistent interpretation and may provide a perverse incentive for some migrants to avoid communication with the Home Office and/or their legal representatives in order to establish the necessary doubt as to whether they could “reasonably” be expected to have known they were required to leave the UK.

Not all those who have entered the UK illegally or attempt to remain illegally in the UK have a history of communication with the Home Office. These are arguably the types of illegal migrant that this legislation is intended to deter. It would be a bizarre outcome should this group be better protected as a result of this amendment than those who have engaged with the authorities.

Where a migrant honestly believes that they have lawful status—for example, because they have been misled by a rogue legal adviser—this will be taken into account in considering whether prosecution would be appropriate in the public interest, and clear guidance to that end will be provided. Should a migrant be able to genuinely evidence that they believed themselves to be legally present, it is highly unlikely that it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

In light of these points, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, will feel able to withdraw their amendment. Given the concerns about the strict liability nature of this offence, I may reflect further on this matter before Report.

The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, represent a significant potential weakening of the powers necessary to enforce the law and realise the intended benefits of this part of the Bill. Amendment 164 would require that a decision whether to charge a person with this offence or institute criminal proceedings be taken within a month of the arrest date. It is right that decisions on whether to prosecute a person for a criminal offence should be taken promptly, but the proposed amendment would introduce an arbitrary time limit and create an additional, and in our view unnecessary, administrative burden on the relevant agencies.

Amendment 169 would have the effect of disallowing the detention of the vehicle if it was under the person’s control. This would defeat the principal purpose of the clause, which is to prevent illegal immigrants driving on our roads. I understand that noble Lords may have intended to probe how the legislation will operate where an illegal migrant is apprehended driving a vehicle belonging to someone else, and that vehicle is detained by the police. That is not an unusual scenario in the context of motoring offences, and the Bill provides appropriate safeguards to deal with just that situation. I draw noble Lords’ attention to new Section 24D(8), which provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the release of a vehicle that has been detained. This power covers the circumstances in which a vehicle should be released to a third party who has an interest in it, such as the vehicle’s owner. Where a person has been convicted of the new offence created by Clause 18, the courts will have the power to order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in the offence. However, a third party with an interest in the vehicle may apply to the court to have the vehicle returned to them.

Amendments 171 to 173 would significantly reduce the potential success of a search for a motor vehicle by removing the ability to apply for an all-premises warrant to search multiple premises. The power contained in the clause to apply for an all-premises warrant, which allows any premises occupied or controlled by a specified person to be searched, is consistent with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies in England and Wales, and the equivalent order in Northern Ireland.

The provisions within the clause and within wider immigration legislation specify that the search power may be exercised only to the extent that it is reasonably required. In order to issue an all-premises warrant, the justice of the peace needs to be presented with reasonable grounds that it is necessary. Limiting the scope of searches to premises specified at the outset of an inquiry negates any possibility of using evidence gained during the initial inquiry that provides reasonable grounds to believe that a further search of additional premises would be successful. In the context of this clause, for instance, this might have the perverse effect of preventing officers who have searched one vehicle lock-up from also searching the one next door, despite information suggesting that the vehicle is kept there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am emulating the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in retreating to the Back Benches to intervene at this late stage. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government would consider further the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Amendment 163. The Minister did not quite address—again, I emulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—the point made by the noble Lord about the desirability or otherwise of dealing with the matter either through the CPS taking a view as to whether to prosecute or through sentencing. I hope that the Government will consider whether it might be better not to have a strict liability offence rather than leaving it to the CPS to consider whether it is in the public interest to prosecute in a particular case.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, the strict liability nature of this offence is consistent with some similar driving offences. It is an offence, for example, to drive whilst disqualified or drive otherwise than in accordance with a licence, regardless of whether or not you realised that you were committing an offence. Therefore, we believe that that is consistent, but obviously, I will look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said and if need be I will respond in writing to her.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, you are more likely to know whether you are disqualified than whether there is a problem over leave to remain.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

165: Clause 18, page 21, line 27, leave out “65 or”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

170: Clause 18, page 22, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) as to the destination of payments made in compliance with such a condition;”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

174: Clause 18, page 23, line 24, leave out “authorising entry on premises by a constable”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I rise very briefly just to say that I await the Government’s response with interest. I am not sure what the argument will be against being able to pay the immigration health surcharge incrementally. On exemptions from the surcharge, if the Government will not go down the road of the amendment, I await with interest to hear what their argument is for not having these exemptions.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I shall make some general points in response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which we had the opportunity to discuss outside the Chamber a little bit before we reached this stage. I took the opportunity to look into it in more detail with officials.

For those reading this in the Official Report, it might be helpful if I address the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the reason for this provision. The total cost of visitors and temporary migrants accessing NHS services in England alone has been estimated at £2 billion per year in 2013. Around £950 million was spent on temporary migrants, such as students and workers, from whom no charge was recoverable. Non-EEA temporary migrants—workers and family—here for more than 12 months had a weighted average cost to the NHS of just more than £800 per head, and a total estimated gross cost to the NHS of more than £500 million per year. Non-EEA students—for any length of stay—had a weighted average cost to the NHS of just more than £700 per head, with a total gross cost to the NHS of £430 million per year.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, made under the Immigration Act 2014, requires that non-EEA temporary migrants who make an immigration application to come to the UK for six months or more, or who apply to extend their stay in the UK, make a direct contribution to the NHS via payment of an immigration health surcharge. The Home Office collects the charge as part of the immigration application process and payment of it is mandatory. If the charge is not paid, the applicant is not processed. Temporary migrants pay upfront an amount that covers the entire period of their permission to stay in the UK. Where an application is refused, rejected or withdrawn, the charge is fully refunded.

The charge has been set at a competitive level of £200 per annum per migrant, and at a discounted rate of £150 per annum for students—well below the true cost to the NHS of treating these migrants, as stated in my opening remarks. It is also set below the rate that migrants expect to pay for health insurance in competitor countries, such as Australia and the USA. For example, a student applying to Harvard in the USA would, in most cases, have to pay a fee of around £600 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s most comprehensive health plan would cost an additional £1,500 per year. In contrast, the surcharge for a foreign student applying to the UK would be only £150 per year.

Upfront payment of the full amount of the charge covering the length of the visa period is administratively far simpler than requiring migrants to make multiple payments of the appropriate amount to the Home Office and the Home Office enforcing such a requirement. Any movement to an instalment approach would bring with it considerable administrative and operational burdens. An observation has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the administrative costs. The amendment would raise them. Home Office staff would need to ensure that payments were being made. If they were not, they would need to chase payment and, in some cases, enforcement action might be required, which could involve curtailing a person’s leave.

Payment by instalments would also lead to confusion about entitlement to free treatment and place unnecessary administrative burdens on the NHS, as NHS staff would have to check at each contact with a patient that they were up to date with their payments. There would also be uncertainty about whether our health system would actually receive all the expected income from the surcharge, which would be an unwelcome prospect for the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I may have misinterpreted what the noble Lord said, but I think that he used the phrase “simpler than requiring instalments”. However, it is not the intention of the amendment to require instalments but rather to allow them to be used in what may be a very small number of cases—I do not know whether that is the case—of people who simply cannot pay upfront. Has he made any estimate of what proportion of people are likely to ask to pay by instalments, because I do not think it is assumed that that would be the default position?

[Lord Bates]

If you offered interest free credit in the commercial world, I guess that probably most people would take advantage of it. Therefore, the cost might be quite significant, unless the noble Baroness is proposing an additional charge for accessing the system through an instalment process, which I do not think she is. The points I made earlier related to the current system. I have not just arrived at this point, as it were. When the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised this issue with me—the week before last, I think—I checked with officials and looked at the system. I was told that it is very difficult because at the moment everything is up front—the costs and everything—and the boxes have to be ticked in order to move on to the frame. As I say, we are not making a spurious objection to the measure. I have more to say on that, but I will now address Amendment 177.

Amendment 177 seeks to exempt children and victims of domestic violence from the charge. Following extensive debates in Parliament during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014, the Government put safeguards in place to protect vulnerable groups. The Immigration Act 2014 provides the Secretary of State with the power to exempt certain categories of applicant from the requirement to pay the immigration health charge. These categories are listed in Schedule 2 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order. Current exemptions include children who make an immigration application or who are looked after by a local authority and a person who applies for limited leave under the Home Office concession known as the destitute domestic violence concession. In the case of the latter, these are individuals who are here as partners of British citizens who are settled here, and can consequently apply for settlement. Individuals who are in the UK for less than six months or who have not paid the charge can still access NHS services, although some of these might be chargeable. However, a key principle of the NHS is that medical treatment which is urgent or immediately necessary in the judgment of a clinician is never withheld from anyone, irrespective of their chargeable status.

Furthermore, since April 2015, treatment that is needed as a consequence of domestic violence is exempt from charge to all overseas visitors, regardless of whether or not they have paid the immigration health charge. This includes both physical and mental health needs. The only stipulation is that the visitor has not come to the UK for the purpose of seeking that treatment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he moves on, he will recall that I raised the issue of our obligations under Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Has he taken advice from officials and Law Officers as to whether we are compliant in doing the very minimum, as he has described to the House today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

On that point, which I was just coming to, migrants making an application for asylum or humanitarian protection, or a claim that their removal from the United Kingdom would be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, will be exempt under the existing rules.

A question was asked, very reasonably, about definition. The explanation is quite lengthy, so perhaps I might put it in writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and copy it to other interested Members. I know that that information would be useful ahead of day four of consideration in Committee, when other related issues will be considered.

On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, children who are visiting the UK with their parents or guardians or whose parents are here unlawfully are generally not entitled to free NHS hospital treatment. However, they will always be provided with immediately necessary and urgent treatment, even if their parents have not paid in advance or are likely to be unable to pay afterwards. But some particularly vulnerable children are exempt from the charge—for example, refugees, those looked after by a local authority and victims of human trafficking. We do not intend to establish a blanket exemption for children, as this poses a significant risk that people would bring their children to the UK to seek treatment for existing serious illnesses. No child is deprived of access to health services, but in some cases this will have to be paid for, unless an exemption applies.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the Cardinal Hume Centre, which I have heard of by reputation. I would be very happy to accompany him with one or two officials, ahead of Report stage, to see the work going on there and to hear about the practical concerns. That would be a good part of testing out what we are doing. However, the Government believe that those who make use of NHS services must pay for them. The immigration health charge is collected as a direct contribution to the NHS. Children are as likely to make use of NHS services as adults, and it is therefore only right that parents and guardians bear the responsibility of paying a charge for their child, except in the type of situation I have identified. Those who pay the charge will then receive free NHS treatment for the duration of their lawful stay in the United Kingdom.

With these explanations and that commitment to explore this issue further ahead of Report, particularly in relation to the Cardinal Hume Centre, I invite noble Lords to consider withdrawing their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Hylton]

Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about this group of amendments, I ask the Minister to reflect between now and Report on whether Section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 is compatible with the agreements we have with other EU states for reciprocal health and welfare benefits. If it is not, that would seem to me to reflect very badly on our current efforts to renegotiate membership.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to reflect on that. Perhaps I will include the response to that with the response on destitution that I promised the noble Baroness.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Bates Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, Clearsprings Ready Homes has announced the immediate end of the use of wristbands to access food. The Home Office has asked for an assurance from all accommodation providers that there are no further policies or practices that allow asylum seekers to be identified as such in public.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, a Government may decide to outsource the provision of temporary accommodation for asylum seekers, but it is the Government who approve who should secure these contracts and government Ministers who have a responsibility for ensuring that the contracts are appropriately delivered. Why have government Ministers failed to carry out their responsibilities? First, it was only after national newspapers exposed what was going on with red doors in Middlesbrough and wristbands to access food in Cardiff that action was taken. Secondly, the Government, as the Minister has now said, are only now busily trying to find out what is happening with the delivery of other similar contracts they have approved. Government Ministers can outsource the provision of accommodation and food for asylum seekers, but they cannot outsource their own direct responsibility and accountability for how those contracts are delivered and their failure to monitor them properly. Do the Government agree?

[Lord Bates]

I agree that we have an obligation to ensure that the most vulnerable people who come into this country seeking asylum are placed in positions where they are cared for and safe. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know the circumstances surrounding this. The asylum seekers were in initial accommodation in Cardiff. In that accommodation were people whose asylum claims and financial needs had been assessed and who then receive a financial contribution for food, and there were people who had just arrived who get full board and three meals a day. The wristbands were used to identify those people who were eligible for the three meals a day. I am not asking the House to accept that that is the way it should be—the practice has stopped—but that was the explanation for it. Certainly, our position is that the safety and security of asylum seekers—and the dignity and humanity with which we treat them—should be paramount. They are inspected by the Home Office on a routine basis—indeed, they have been inspected by the National Audit Office as well—and we look forward to the reports coming back.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Azure cards, red front doors, wristbands and now refusing to take any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Europe: when will the Government stop giving the impression that asylum seekers are a problem to be palmed off on other countries at all costs and start treating them as vulnerable people in desperate need of our help, including sanctuary in this country?

[Lord Bates]

We can all be proud of this country’s record in offering asylum to people in need. The EU, which has a relocation scheme—it said that it would get 160,000 people out of the region into and around Europe—has so far managed to relocate 331 people under that scheme. The Prime Minister said in September that we would have 1,000 people from the region here by Christmas. We had more than 1,000 here by Christmas. The Prime Minister announced today that there will be a further review, with UNHCR, to identify unaccompanied children from conflict regions and how they can be helped further. We announced today a further £10 million to help unaccompanied children who are in Europe already. In addition, we are the second largest donor in providing aid to Syria. All that package together shows that we are living up to the high expectations and strong traditions that this country has in dealing with people in need.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Will the Minister, who is characteristically sensitive and careful in his use of language when referring to vulnerable people coming to this country, have a quiet word with the Prime Minister about his language when yesterday he described these people as “a bunch of migrants”?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, sometimes the other place is not quite the same civilised debating forum as we are on most occasions. However, while people choose phrases in the heat of the moment—I have done it myself—more important are the actions behind the words. Announcing today that we will take in more people from conflict areas and announcing another £10 million to keep pledges to help people from Syria are actions that speak louder than words.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House when the Home Office inspections were undertaken? If the Home Office had been inspecting regularly, surely it would have noticed the red doors and the wristbands. It is either a fault in the conditions of the contract or it is a failure of inspection.

[Lord Bates]

The system of inspections means that a third of all accommodation is inspected by the Home Office each year. It is inspected every 28 days by the contractor and, because we are working in partnership with local authorities, they are also required to inspect. In this case, there had not been complaints to trigger action until the point when it became an issue, and then of course action was taken swiftly, and rightly so.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House about the Government’s plans to ensure that the children are well cared for once they arrive in this country?

[Lord Bates]

We have an obligation to children under the Children Act, which means that they are cared for. One of the issues I find of concern as regards unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is that currently only some six of our 440 local authorities are part of the voluntary scheme. It would be very good if more local authorities came forward to ensure that the burden is spread beyond places such as Middlesbrough and Kent more widely across the UK, which would be to the benefit of asylum seekers and would help social cohesion.

Population Increase: Migration

Lord Bates Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the projected increase in population of the United Kingdom between mid-2015 and mid-2030, if net migration were reduced to 265,000 per year, the high-migration assumption in the latest official population projections.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates)]

My Lords, the projections do not attempt to predict the impact of future government policies, economic circumstances or other factors. The Government recognise that uncontrolled mass immigration can increase population pressures. That is why we remain committed to cutting net migration to sustainable levels. We continue to work across government to reduce net migration from outside the EU, and seek reform of Europe to reduce the pull factors behind EU migration.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for the policy he has outlined. We all recognise the benefits of controlled immigration, but is he aware that the total population increase projected is the equivalent of the combined populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Edinburgh and Bristol, plus eight other cities the size of Cardiff, Leicester or Aberdeen? Two-thirds of that increase will be down to future immigrants and their future children, and all that will happen in 15 years if immigration is brought down by 75,000 from present levels. Do the Government believe that a population increase on such a scale is feasible or desirable?

[Lord Bates]

I said in my Answer to the initial Question that we believe that immigration was too high and that it needed to be reduced to a sustainable level. We recognise that this country gets huge benefits from the people who come here to study and to work, who are very welcome. We want to make sure that our immigration system continues to attract the brightest and the best, but that we have firm controls and restrictions on those who do not come here to contribute to our society.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have focused on one of the pull factors—benefits—but not on what seems to many of us to be much more important, which is the skills shortages in Britain. I went round various Bradford schools last Friday, all of which, including the independent schools, said they are short of teachers and are recruiting from Australia and elsewhere. I am conscious that the National Health Service is trying to recruit 6,000 nurses from outside the EU and that there are trucking companies in the north of England directly recruiting from eastern Europe. Would not an active labour market policy and investment in skills training on a larger scale do a great deal more to reduce immigration than some of the other measures we have in place?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. This is one of the reasons why we are investing in apprenticeships and in the quality of our education. A very important element of the Immigration Bill which is currently going through your Lordships’ House is the application of a skills levy on people who employ from outside the EU, which will then go back into making sure that the UK-based population have the skills necessary for those jobs in future.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

Does it remain the Government’s policy that immigration should be brought down to tens of thousands a year?

[Lord Bates]

Yes, that is our policy, which we repeated in the manifesto at the 2015 election.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that that vague objective might be at least rational, and our presentation to the public would be more rational, if we took full-time and postgraduate students out of the so-called target?

[Lord Bates]

In essence, it does not make any difference. The target is based on the international way in which the ONS calculates the data. There is absolutely no limit on the number of bona fide students coming to study at bona fide universities in the UK. Where there remains a problem is with people who overstay on those student visas. Last year, 123,000 people came in, but we counted out only 36,000. That leaves a gap of around 90,000 which we need to understand better. Exit controls will help that, but we do not think that changing the way we calculate the figures will necessarily make any difference to finding the correct answer.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, how would you replace the doctors and surgeons from overseas? In north Wales, one-third of our consultants in Ysbyty Gwynedd, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and Ysbyty Maelor are from overseas. How would you replace them if you have a harsh attitude towards overseas folk?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and that is the reason why we have no intention of doing that, and why we have the tier 2 visa process, through which people with skills in shortage occupations, as judged by the Migration Advisory Committee, come to contribute to our society. We are immensely grateful that they continue to do that.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the High Commissioner for New Zealand made a speech deploring the fact that New Zealanders who come under the highly skilled category have to go all the way back to New Zealand to get a renewal? He thinks that is particularly hard—certainly, no one has to go further than New Zealand. A lot of these people may eventually become immigrants: I came for six months and I am still here 60 years later. Will he give thought to changing these regulations so that people do not have the great disadvantage of having to go long distances simply to renew whatever they already have?

[Lord Bates]

I hope that was not an admission that my noble friend is an overstayer; if so, she is a very welcome one. For most Commonwealth countries, no visa is required, and it is absolutely right to recognise the special relationship we have with them. When people come on one type of visa, it is normal in most jurisdictions around the world that once the purpose for which they were granted access has expired and they wish to change it, they go back and reapply. We are simply saying that that ought to remain the case.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Minister referred to the Government’s objective of net migration in the tens of thousands. Bearing in mind that the implementation of that objective seems to have been slightly delayed, can he tell us when it will be achieved? Since this Government like to assert that they are in control of our borders, what do they expect the net migration figure to be for 2016 and 2017?

[Lord Bates]

The reality is that in some ways, we are victims of our own success. We have an economy that creates more jobs in certain counties than the entire European Union has managed to achieve in all 27 countries, and we have the only universities in Europe that are in the top 10 in the world. When we have that blessed combination of circumstances, it is not surprising that so many people want to come here and that people who are here do not want to leave.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Bates Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 1 page 1, line 5, after “9” insert “and (Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution)”

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

Noble Lords will recall the debate on Report in this House on 14 July, on the use of psychoactive substances in prisons. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, then argued that the supply of psychoactive substances in prisons was of such concern that it should be made a statutory aggravating factor under Clause 6 of the Bill.

In response, I recognised that the use of psychoactive substances by prisoners represented a significant challenge to the welfare of prisoners and the safe and secure management of prisons. While expressing sympathy for the noble Lord’s amendment, I argued that the promulgation of further aggravating factors was properly a matter for the Sentencing Council. That being the case, I undertook to write to the Sentencing Council to draw its attention to the debate, which the Minister for Policing, Fire and Criminal Justice and Victims has now done. I also argued that it would be worth looking at alternative ways of addressing this problem, including introducing an offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in prison. Your Lordships’ House was not persuaded that these undertakings went far enough and consequently agreed the amendment put forward by the Opposition.

Having reflected on the debate on Report, the Government are content that the supply of, or an offer to supply, a psychoactive substance in prison should be treated as a statutory aggravating factor. Commons Amendment 5 therefore simply makes drafting improvements to the amendment passed by this House in July. Specifically, the amendment replaces the reference to “prison premises” with the term “custodial institution” and then defines this term to include adult prisons and their juvenile equivalents, service custody premises and immigration detention accommodation. Immigration detention centres are not, of course, penal institutions, hence the adoption of the term “custodial institution” as an alternative to the reference to prison premises.

Commons Amendment 6 brings forward subsection (9) of Clause 6 and simply improves the logical flow of the clause.

As I indicated in July, the Government were giving separate consideration to the case for including in the Bill an offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution. The case for this is essentially the same as the one set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, when he put forward his amendment to Clause 6. The presence of psychoactive substances in prisons is a destructive and growing problem. The use of psychoactive substances—now the drugs of choice among prisoners—has been linked to mental health problems and disturbed behaviour by prisoners, including violence. It is having an increasingly destructive impact on security and order in prisons and on the welfare of individual prisoners. In a bulletin published in July, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman identified 19 deaths in prison between April 2012 and September 2014 where the prisoner was known, or strongly suspected, to have been using psychoactive substances before their death.

Control and order are fundamental foundations of prison life. Without them, staff, prisoner and visitor safety cannot be guaranteed and the rehabilitation of prisoners cannot take place. We have already introduced a number of measures to tackle the use of psychoactive substances in prisons. These include training of specialist dog teams to search and detect synthetic drugs in prisons in England and Wales; searching cells for hidden drugs; patrolling prison perimeters; and searching visitors to prevent drugs from being smuggled in. More than 120 dogs have now received special training in psychoactive substance detection and we will have trained more than 300 dogs by the end of the calendar year. Other measures include a major push on prison communications to make sure that offenders are aware of the consequences of taking psychoactive substances —as are visitors who attempt to bring them in—and the introduction of new drug tests in the coming months to identify prisoners using psychoactive substances.

Nonetheless, the use of psychoactive substances remains significant and pervasive in prisons. A possession offence in prison—as provided for in Commons Amendment 9—will enable the police and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue cases where prisoners, visitors or staff are found with small quantities of psychoactive substances in prisons. The introduction of such an offence will support our stance that the use of psychoactive substances in prison is not to be tolerated.

Many instances of simple possession by prisoners can often effectively be dealt with by the internal prison disciplinary service. Where joint working between prisons and the police identifies a particular problem with psychoactive substances in a prison, a prison possession offence could be used very effectively and might just deter some of those involved. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, possession offences quite properly attract lower maximum sentences compared with production, supply and importation offences, and so it is here. While the offences in Clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill have a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, Commons Amendment 10 to Clause 9 provides for a maximum penalty for this new offence of two years’ imprisonment. Commons Amendments 1, 21, 22, 27, 31 and 34 to 37 are consequential on Commons Amendment 9. General possession of a psychoactive substance in the community will continue to not be a criminal offence. This reflects the recommendation of the expert panel that the focus of the legislation should be on tackling the trade in psychoactive substances, but as I have set out, the problems caused by the use of psychoactive substances in prisons are such as to justify a targeted possession offence that applies only in the context of possession in prisons or other custodial institutions.

The Government have listened to the arguments put forward by this House for strengthening the Bill to tackle the particular harms caused by the use of psychoactive substances in prisons and other custodial institutions. Having pressed for such strengthening of the Bill, the House will, I am sure, join me in welcoming these Commons amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said. One aspect of Amendment 9 that the Minister mentioned was that a number of improvements were being made in prisons to the detection of new psychoactive substances. I should like to refer particularly to a very powerful report published last month by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on the use of new psychoactive substances. He said:

“Drug misuse is a serious threat to the security of the prison system, the health of individual prisoners and the safety of prisoners and staff”,

but the new psychoactive substances are an even more serious offence and,

“are now the most serious threat to the safety and security of the prison system”.

Because dealing with the new psychoactive substances—searching for them and so on—was so patchy in the Prison Service, the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended:

“The Prison Service should improve its response to current levels and types of drug misuse in prisons and ensure that its structures enable it to respond quickly and flexibly to the next trend”.

I will mention the next trend before I conclude. The chief inspector recommended:

“A national committee should be established, chaired by the Prisons Minister, with a membership of relevant operational experts from the public and private prison sectors, health services, law enforcement, substance misuse services and other relevant experts. The committee should be tasked to produce and publish an annual assessment of all aspects of drug use in prisons, based on all the available evidence and intelligence, and produce and keep under review a national prison drugs strategy”.

If that annual report was required, it would, of course, cover the possession mentioned in the amendment that we are discussing, but I am particularly concerned that, in briefing the cross-party group on criminal justice, drugs and alcohol that I chair, the chief inspector mentioned the next trend causing him and his inspectors even more worry, which was the introduction of powdered alcohol. Therefore, we must have a system in place that monitors trends as well as current practices. I ask the Minister: what is happening about the establishment of such a national committee?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his welcome of the amendment and other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it. It is important.

The noble Lord asked a number of questions on whether the offence will apply only to prisoners. This is an important point to address to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The new offence will apply to all persons in possession of a psychoactive substance in prison. It is not particularly targeting prisoners themselves, so it could include visitors—or staff, for that matter—who possess these new psychoactive substances.

The noble Lord asked what pressure had come for this. Pressure came from a number of sources, including those that argued in favour of his amendment last July. Although it was not originally one such pressure, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has brought to the fore the impressive and disturbing report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, called Changing Patterns of Substance Misuse in Adult Prisons and Service Responses, from December 2015. As the noble Lord has quoted, the chief inspector has said that new psychoactive substances,

“have created significant additional harm and are now the most serious threat to the safety and security of the prison system that our inspections identify”.

The noble Lord is absolutely right to identify this. I spoke in my introductory remarks about the additional dogs being trained for inspections, but it is right—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked for this—that there should be a major push on prison communications to ensure that offenders are aware of the consequences of taking psychoactive substances, as are visitors attempting to bring them in. New drug tests are also being developed in this area.

I know that it was slightly ingenious to bring poppers into this group. I had prepared some remarks to address that in the second group of amendments. If noble Lords will allow me, I will address my remarks in that setting, lest I duplicate them.

On the prison drugs strategy, the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suggests is very interesting. While I cannot give a firm undertaking today, I would want to speak to the Prisons Minister, Andrew Selous, about this suggestion. I will get back to the noble Lord on whether a national committee could do this. Again, we are conscious of the constantly changing nature of this. In many ways, that was the argument for the blanket ban on psychoactive substances, rather than the whack-a-mole situation we were in before, where new things popped up as other things were outlawed.

With those comments and promises to get back to noble Lords on specific points of interest and to address further concerns in the next group, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 4.

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “Section 10” and insert “Section (Exceptions to offences)”

4: Clause 5 page 3, line 14, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 15 and insert “section
(Exceptions to offences) (exceptions to offences).”

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, in drafting this Bill, we have adopted a similar approach to that taken by the Republic of Ireland’s Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010; namely, setting out a broad definition of a psychoactive substance and then circumscribing it with a robust set of exemptions to narrow the Bill’s scope. The current list of exempted substances in Schedule 1 includes substances controlled through existing legislation, such as alcohol, tobacco and nicotine, medicinal products and controlled drugs, and substances where psychoactive effects are negligible, such as caffeine and foodstuffs.

I am delighted to see my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen in her place with me on the Front Bench. During the Bill’s passage through this House, my noble friend responded to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and agreed that we should look again at the drafting of the Bill with a view to strengthening the exemptions for medicinal products and research. As my noble friend Lady Chisholm made clear on Report in July, the Government have no intention through this Bill of fettering the discretion of clinicians to prescribe or direct the supply of substances which, in their clinical judgment, meet the needs of their patients. My noble friend also made it clear that we have no intention of constraining bona fide scientific research. This Government attach the highest priority to research and are committed to removing—or not putting in place—unnecessary regulatory barriers that impede that research in the UK.

During the summer, the Home Office worked closely with a range of public and private organisations to address both points, and I am confident that the new formulation put forward in these Commons amendments effectively responds to the issue and ensures that we have a robust list of exemptions.

Let me deal first with the definition of a medicinal product in Schedule 1 to the Bill. One concern put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was that the definition did not cover so-called “specials”; that is, products which are used in healthcare but have no marketing authorisation. These products have been manufactured or imported, to the order of a doctor and certain other medical practitioners, specifically for the treatment of individual patients to meet their special clinical need.

It is not our intention that medicinal products regulated under the framework provided for in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 should be caught by this Bill. In defining a medicinal product by reference to a product with certain types of marketing authorisation, we were, on reflection, not casting the net widely enough. Commons Amendment 41 properly aligns the Bill with the regulatory framework for medicines. The Home Office worked closely with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency during the summer to revise this exemption.

Following careful consideration, Commons Amendment 41 uses the definition of a “medicinal product” as defined in Regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. This would mean that any substance which falls within the following definition would be caught by the exemption and so would be outside the scope of the Bill:

“(a) any substance … presented as having properties of preventing or treating disease in human beings; or … (b) any substance … that may be used by or administered to human beings with a view to … (i) restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or … (ii) making a medical diagnosis.”.

The Human Medicines Regulations consolidate the law of the United Kingdom concerning medicinal products for human use, including their authorisation, manufacture, distribution, importation and sale. I can assure noble Lords that we are satisfied that this revised definition covers all medicinal products that are approved for use in the UK. This definition includes investigational medicinal products, homeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicines. That being the case, we can dispense with paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 1, and Commons Amendment 42 removes them accordingly.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will remain the body which regulates activity in relation to medicinal products, whether they are authorised or not, and these amendments and the Bill will not encroach on that. The MHRA is already called upon to determine whether a product meets the definition of a “medicinal product”. This will be an important role going forward to assist with ensuring that the exemption for medicinal products is relied on only in appropriate cases. Our approach will ensure that the regulatory frameworks for psychoactive substances and human medicines complement rather than overlap each other and ensure that the public are properly protected for medicinal and non-medicinal psychoactive substances.

Having dealt with the changes to the list of exempted substances, I now turn to exempted activities. Commons Amendment 11 provides that it would not be an offence under the Bill for a person to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import or export, or possess in a custodian institution a psychoactive substance if, in the circumstances in which it is carried by that person, the activity is an exempted activity. Commons Amendment 43 then sets out the list of exempted activities. These fall into two categories. The first exempts legitimate activities of healthcare professionals, while the second covers research. I will explain both in turn.

The exemption for healthcare-related activities will cover healthcare professionals acting in the course of their profession, and ensures that the Bill will not fetter their discretion as clinicians. At the moment a healthcare professional is free to prescribe or direct the supply of any psychoactive substance that is not a medicinal product as defined by the Human Medicines Regulations if, in their clinical judgment, this is in the best interests of the patient. While we do not have specific examples of such substances in mind, we wish to ensure that the Bill does not fetter clinicians’ freedom in this regard.

Commons Amendment 11 will ensure that, either now or in the future, a healthcare professional will not be hindered in offering treatment which in their clinical judgment is right for their patient. There are separate rules, in particular in relation to controlled drugs, which govern which substances a healthcare practitioner can and cannot prescribe which are unaffected by this exemption.

We have defined a “health care professional” using the existing definition in Regulation 8 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. This definition includes a doctor, dentist, pharmacist, nurse and midwife among others. The exemption also extends to people who supply substances to patients in accordance with a prescription issued by a healthcare professional, or at their direction.

Turning to research, while the inclusion of investigational medicinal products in Schedule 1 signalled our intention to exempt research activity, the Government recognise that the exemption fell short of what was required and, as such, failed to cover all research which could be caught by the Bill. I am grateful to the Academy of Medical Sciences and to noble Lords for raising this issue. The Home Office has reconsidered this issue and, after consulting the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Health, the Health Research Authority, the Government Office for Science, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the devolved Administrations, we have identified a revised approach.

Given that a wide range of bodies might undertake relevant research, our approach has been to frame the exemption around research which has received appropriate ethical approval from an ethics review body. We understand that all research which will be caught by the Bill should receive such approval. We have discussed this approach with the Academy of Medical Sciences and others in the research community, who are content with our approach.

All research that is approved by one of the Health Research Authority’s research ethics committees will be exempted and, as the Health Research Authority’s remit covers health and social care research, we expect that this will be a major mechanism for the exemption of research. We acknowledge the possibility of research in fields other than health and social care and, for that reason, the exemption will also cover all research approved by: an ethics committee constituted by a government department; an NHS body; a research institute, including universities; or a charity which is concerned with advancing health or saving lives.

These mechanisms for ethical approval are already in place and the Government believe that any research involving the consumption of a psychoactive substance by a human should be considered by an ethics committee, not least to give due regard to the safety of the research’s participants. From our discussions with the research community over the summer, we have not been able to identify any example of in-scope research which has not been considered by an ethics body, so this exemption should not create any additional bureaucracy for the research community, nor require bona fide researchers to do anything they do not already do. We are just conscious not to create a loophole which allows head shops and others to undertake so-called research to facilitate the supply of these substances. It is worth putting on record again that a considerable amount of scientific research falls outside the scope of the Bill in any case. Only research involving the consumption of a psychoactive substance by a person would be caught.

Commons Amendment 11 includes a power to add to or vary the list of exempted activities in the new schedule inserted by Commons Amendment 43. This regulation-making power effectively replaces that in Clause 10, so Commons Amendment 12 omits that clause. Commons Amendments 2 to 4, 7, 8, 13, 29, 30 and 38 are all consequential on Commons Amendments 11 and 43.

I was asked about poppers. The Government recognise that representations have been made to the effect that poppers have a beneficial health and relationship effect. In consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA—the Home Office will therefore consider, following the enactment of the Bill and before the Summer Recess, whether there is evidence to support these claims and, if so, whether it is sufficient to justify exempting the alkyl nitrites group, or individual substances in that group. Clause 3 enables the Home Secretary, by regulations—after statutory consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and subject to the affirmative procedure—to add to the list of exempted substances in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Finally, I thank all those in the medical and research community, as well as those in government departments and this House, who assisted us over the summer in drafting these amendments. I now believe that we have a strong exemption list which meets the guiding principle. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the noble Lord for his very full and thorough explanation of the purpose and intention of this group of amendments. As the Minister has said, the intention of this group is to address concerns expressed by ourselves and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, during the Bill’s passage in this House, that healthcare activities and scientific medical research relating to new psychoactive substances were not adequately protected in the Bill. The amendments insert a new clause and schedule to provide for exemptions to the offences under Clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill and the new possession offence which has just been discussed. As the Minister said, these exemptions are for activities carried out by healthcare professionals and for approved scientific research activity. The Government’s amendments also confer on the Secretary of State the power, through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, to add to or vary any activity described in the schedule to the Bill which has now been inserted by the Commons.

The Minister has referred to the position of those bodies and institutions directly affected by this Commons amendment. I think the Minister has already said this, but I would be grateful if he would confirm that those bodies and institutions are satisfied that the amendments that have been carried in the Commons, and which we are considering at the moment, meet the concerns that they have expressed.

Finally, in relation to poppers, I understand that a decision is likely to be made fairly soon. I think the suggestion was that conclusions might be reached by the summer. Are we then in a situation where poppers might be banned under the terms of the Bill, only to be—if I may use the expression—unbanned in the summer? Or are we in a situation where the terms of the Bill in relation to the new psychoactive substances will not come into force until a conclusion has been reached in respect of poppers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I would like to pursue the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as well as touch on a broader aspect of the legislation. I am in the slightly odd position of having arrived in this place after the original debates in Committee, and I would like to make two points.

First, there is something I do not really understand—and I say this having been chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association. Pubs were created in 1751. This legislation is all or nothing. There is no allowance for things that might be sold in either a licensed premises or a regulated premises. There are many things in British life that are sold under such circumstances and I do not understand why we have to have an all-or-nothing approach to these substances. I understand the nature of the legislation but there are chemical circumstances under which people could define things and regulate them. If we have been doing something for 260 years, I think the Home Office might catch up. It is probably not its finest hour in terms of legislative process.

To follow up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, since the Government say—this is a change of position, although it was not a specific government amendment—that they will look at something, they could do one of two things. They could either adjust the timetable for the whole legislation and defer it slightly or rush through a consideration of something that is likely to be driven underground in the mean time. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we are going to ban and then unban. What advice will be given to the police in the mean time? Are they to disregard the sale of illegal products or are they just not to prosecute? It really does not make sense. I suggest that we either adopt a position of regulating products or defer the introduction of this legislation.

[Lord Bates]

In response, I say first to my noble friend Lord Hayward, who has been a welcome addition to this House since his arrival, that when we were considering the Bill during its earlier stages in this House, the problem we were trying to identify was that once these new psychoactive substances were named, I or someone else, such as my noble friend Lady Chisholm, would come before your Lordships’ House with secondary legislation seeking to ban a particular chemical composition. Then it would be slightly tweaked by one or two molecules and reappear the next week as something else, and all the time people would be put at risk. That was the mischief that the whole thrust of this legislation was about. In the Conservative Party manifesto at the last election, we also made it clear that we would institute a blanket ban.

Forgive me for going through the points raised almost in reverse order, but my noble friend Lord Hayward asked whether we are going to ban and then unban. That is to prejudge the outcome of the consultation and review. The review may say that it is something that should be taken off the list; it may say that it should remain on the list. That is for it to do, so we do not know what the outcome will be. As we do not know that, we cannot prejudge it by putting it into this primary legislation. But because of this legislation we have a secondary legislation option whereby, if that decision is taken as a result of the consultation, we can act quickly to address it.

Let me deal with some of the other points which were raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me to confirm whether various medical groups and research groups had been consulted. Yes, they have, and they have been immensely helpful. I know that many in your Lordships’ House who spoke in Committee and on Report were speaking precisely to that point about the potential danger that this posed to legitimate medical research. I think they would welcome the fact that we have made it explicit in the Bill that these exemptions are there for research.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her advance notice of the question on charities. The charity we are talking about would of course be a registered charity, and it would have to be one concerned with the advancing of health and saving lives. One hopes that the ability of someone to set up a “charitable body” which then started dispensing might be restricted, in the same way as restricting research to that approved by an ethics committee was the correct way forward. I can confirm that the Academy of Medical Sciences and other research communities were consulted on this. Also in response to the noble Baroness, cannabis is a controlled drug so it is outside the scope of the Bill, as controlled drugs are specifically exempt. The regulations that govern research in relation to cannabis are under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is unchanged.

I may have answered the other points that were raised —no, there was a specific one on the term “individual”. The definition of the ethics body in new paragraph 4(b) does not exclude clinical trials of cohorts of people, as it refers to “individuals”—plural—not to an individual. It is important that medical charities such as Cancer Research are able to benefit from this exemption. We do not believe that the exemption for charities risks opening any loopholes. Section 1 of the Charities Act 2011 defines a charity as,

“an institution … established for charitable purposes only”.

Section 2(1)(b) of the Act states that the charitable purposes must be in the public interest. Head shops are unlikely to be considered as acting in the public interest—on the contrary, we would argue—so could not benefit from this exemption. I hope that that has been helpful in addressing some of the points raised.

[Lord Rosser]

The situation with poppers is that they are not banned at the moment, but they will be when the Bill comes into effect and becomes an Act. I accept what the Minister says about the wording being “could” not “will”, but they could then be unbanned in the summer, as I think the Government have said that they expect their consideration by experts will be concluded by the Summer Recess. Is that a particularly satisfactory situation? If I am correct, something that is not banned at the moment may end up being banned for a few months and then unbanned.

[Lord Bates]

In a sense, my argument is about what alternative we have to this. The moment for putting something through now, in primary legislation, has passed. We have to allow this to take its course. Our concession was to say that we would undertake a review in consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Following the enactment of the Bill, and before the Summer Recess, we will consider whether there is evidence to support these claims. There is a question mark there and we believe that that research and consultation need to happen before we take any further action at this stage.

I see that the cavalry has arrived; I am, as ever, grateful my noble friend Lady Chisholm. To add to the list of exemptions requires the Home Secretary only to make regulations subject to affirmative procedure. To remove from the original list of exemptions would require further primary legislation. I think I have already said this, so I rest my case at that point and beg to move Amendments 2 to 4 in my name.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the point is well made and this is an almost insoluble dilemma. I entirely see the Government’s concern to have the overall legislation in place quickly. However, first, can the Minister give the House any news as to when this may come into effect? Secondly, with regard to the particular situation which has been described, this is by no means a solution, but has the Minister been advised as to the likely view of the judiciary—if that is not an improper question for a Minister to answer—in a situation where, by the time a charge comes to be heard by a court, an exemption has been made through regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Subject to your Lordships’ approval this afternoon, the legislation will come into force in April 2016. We discussed in Committee, with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, how the police might respond to that. The police of course have discretion in these circumstances, and we have said very clearly that we know who we are after in relation to this, which is the people who are actually importing, selling and supplying these dangerous substances. I believe that the police can use their discretion at that point. If there are specific circumstances that require further clarification on that, it can be provided for later under the terms of the Bill.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 5 to 13.

5: Clause 6, page 3, line 43, leave out “on prison premises.” and insert “in a custodial institution.
( ) In this section—
“custodial institution” means any of the following—
(a) a prison;
(b) a young offender institution, secure training centre, secure college, young offenders institution, young offenders centre, juvenile justice centre or remand centre;
(c) a removal centre, a short-term holding facility or pre- departure accommodation;
(d) service custody premises;
“removal centre”, “short-term holding facility” and “pre-departure accommodation” have the meaning given by section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
“service custody premises” has the meaning given by section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 14 to 20.

14: Clause 23, page 14, line 34, leave out from beginning to “except” in line 35 and insert “in a case where the prohibition order or the premises order imposing the access prohibition was made by a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the court that made the order,”

--- Later in debate ---

20: Clause 31, page 20, line 13, leave out subsection (7)

[Lord Bates]

Noble Lords will recall that at Report in July, I moved various technical amendments to the Bill to ensure that it properly reflects Scots law and Scottish judicial and policing practice. The Commons amendments in this group are in a similar vein. The group also repeals the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, which the Bill renders redundant. I can provide further detail if required, but for now, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21 to 48.

21: Clause 35 page 22, line 5, leave out “8” and insert “(Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution)”