Immigration: Points-based System

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is correct to raise this. We have to be careful of the unintended consequences of any new system. In my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I said that there would be regular reviews and advice to the Government from the MAC. As with any new system, it will be under regular review. At the heart of what the Government want to do is taking control of our borders and immigration system.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that the Government’s policy will not hold. It will certainly not hold in the health and social care sector; it is only a question of when they will be forced to reverse their policy. Does the Minister acknowledge that health and social care has relied on migration ever since it started? The 50,000 nurse target that the Government are committed to depends on thousands of nurses coming to this country. I accept that they can come under this new policy, but what about the care sector? According to the Minister yesterday, in 2018 the ludicrous MAC said that the problems of the care sector should be solved by the sector itself investing in,

“making jobs in social care worthwhile”.—[Official Report, 24/2/20; col. 9.]

Have noble Lords ever heard such nonsense? The care sector is collapsing. There is no resource there—no funding for training and recruitment. The Government are saying that they are prepared to see the whole sector collapse as a result of this ludicrous policy. It is only a question of time before the Minister comes back to tell the House that she will reverse this policy; she will have to.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord is agreeing that we should allow more migrant workers in health and social care. He will know that we have had a 150% increase in migration from non-EU countries to health and social care. I am well aware that we have relied on migration for health and social care for many years. It is the reason I am in this country; both my parents are migrant doctors. We are lucky indeed to have them, generally, in this country. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to have the funding to underpin making extra places for doctors and nurses in this country. The Government have announced a huge increase in funding for the healthcare sector. It has always been our intention that, when we leave the EU, EU and non-EU migrants will be treated exactly the same. The competition will be there to get the best and brightest people, from all parts of the world, for our NHS.

Immigration: Refugee Doctors

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, our policy on that has not changed, but these things are constantly under review. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is right that, if someone is seeking asylum but not yet legally resident here, they should not be in a position to be able to work.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister makes great play of the fact that doctors are highly skilled; of course they are. But what about care workers? Why is the classification used by the Home Office going to deny us thousands of people coming from other countries to work in our care system? This is complete madness.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is fair to recognise that the problems in the care system are not fixable only through immigration. The MAC recognised in 2018 that the sector needs to invest in making jobs in social care worthwhile careers rather than be propped up with immigrant labour.

Alcohol

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that I outlined clearly that there has not been a change of mind. There was a pause rather than a retraction in the Government’s thinking back in 2013, given the case of the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish Government. We will keep the issue under review and review the policy in the light of that case.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not time for a bit of honesty here? Over the last few years Minister after Minister has got up and given one reason after another why we cannot introduce this provision. The Government have now had the PHE report. Why do they not simply say, “We are not going ahead with it”, rather than prevaricating in the way that they have?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are not saying they are not going ahead with it because that is not the situation. We are keeping the issue under review in the light of what happens in Scotland.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. It has been very interesting and it will be quite difficult to sum up because so many subjects and topics have been covered.

I start by declaring an interest in that I am the chair of the superannuation committee of the General Medical Council. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, now knows what is coming next, because we had a very good debate in the Moses Room recently on a Question for Short Debate on medical regulation. He was as good as his word and took the message back from that. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others in this debate expressed dismay—I think that is what it was—that this opportunity to deal with the modernisation of medical regulation, not just for doctors but nurses and other professions allied to medicine, will now be missed. There is a real fear that, with the election upon us next year and the manifesto priorities of an incoming Government, the chances of slipping something as sensible as medical regulation into an early programme within the next five-year Parliament is remote. The 1983 Act—which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, completely unfit for purpose now—will have to prevail for that length of time.

My plea again to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the Minister who will wind up is that they take the message back from this debate. It may well be that we have had enough health legislation in this Parliament—we have had our fair share—but I think this would probably be susceptible to cross-party or all-party support. I do not mean by that there would not be robust debates. We would all promise to be very well behaved under the guidance of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as we always are. My spies tell me—my spies are everywhere—that this is a failure of political will and that the Government are frightened of having a health debate in the year running up to an election. That seems to be the height of cowardice, if true.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the Department of Health is telling regulators that it is due to lack of parliamentary time—which rather defies all logic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to wind up for the Opposition. I start by congratulating our two maiden speakers: the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Glendonbrook. The right reverend Prelate reminded us of how it used to be with selective education, when a small percentage of students went to grammar schools and the rest were consigned to secondary modern schools to do CSEs and often had few prospects in life before them. The right reverend Prelate is a shining example of that system but I hope that we never go back to those days. It is good to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Glendonbrook, who has been a generous supporter of Gilbert and Sullivan over the years. He is the very model of a modern major aviator.

This has been an excellent debate which has clearly exposed the paucity of the Government’s last legislative programme. We have spent more time discussing what is not in the legislative programme than what is in it. We face so many challenges in this country with the disenchantment with politics and politicians felt by so many people, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, and the sense that too many people in the UK feel let down by the lack of housing and the lack of prospects for children. Above all, I suggest, they doubt whether their work and effort are reflected in their sharing fairly in the wealth of this country. The Queen’s Speech was silent on that. It made no response to the recent speech of the Governor of the Bank of England, who said that inequality was now one of the biggest challenges facing our country. As my noble friend Lady Lawrence said, there was no response to the issue of the huge number of people—more than a million—who are forced to work on zero-hours contracts, with the huge insecurity that that brings. There was also silence on the National Health Service which is crumbling under the weight of one of the most ill conceived measures in the history of Parliament—namely, the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

There are, of course, things in the Queen’s Speech that we welcome, such as the slavery Bill, which many noble Lords have welcomed—although I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who asked about to whom guardians will be made available.

On the Serious Crime Bill, we of course support measures to tackle child abuse and emotional neglect; but I hope that the Minister will respond to my noble friend Lord Patel and others on the need to protect in legislation mentally vulnerable adults. I hope, too, he will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who was forthright and to the point; the lack of purposeful activity for offenders in prisons is alarming and undoubtedly is storing up great trouble for the future.

On legal aid, my noble friend Lord Bach spoke vividly about the importance of early access to advice, whereby many problems in the past have been sorted out. The Government have to be held to account for destroying a vital part of our justice system. My noble friend Lord Beecham pointed out the problems in the courts; so many people now have to cope for themselves because they cannot get access to a lawyer that it is having a real impact on the administration of justice. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis was right about the dismantling of legal aid, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, spoke about the potential diminution of people’s respect for the law. He put a straight question to the Government on the future of legal aid, and I hope that he receives an answer.

On education, my noble friend Lady Lawrence spoke eloquently about apprenticeships schemes, which need to lead to long-term employment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Jones about the current fragmentation of our schools and the need for local accountability. Now is not the time to debate the Statement made by Mr Gove this afternoon but the flawed response shows that the coalition’s policy increases the risk of infiltration and radicalisation. Ever greater fragmentation at local level, more schools with unqualified teachers, no local oversight and the centralisation of power in an unwieldy Department for Education can only exacerbate the risk of further problems.

On higher education, my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who I am delighted is shortly to become chancellor of Birmingham University, clearly illustrated the disaster of the Home Office’s completely obdurate approach to students coming to this country. We all know it is about the target. Ministers claim that it was because of problems with certain dubious institutions, but that problem had been dealt with years ago. This policy is having a direct impact on some of our best universities and is causing horrendous problems in terms of the reputation of this country. We are surely entitled to ask the Government to think again on this matter.

I now want to turn to health. Remarkably, in the fifth Session there is no Bill to modernise the regulation of health professions. The current process, as has been readily identified by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is slow and out of date, with bureaucratic processes. We have had the work of the Law Commission and the Francis inquiry. Why on earth are the Government not bringing a Bill? If they cannot, why are they not bringing one forward for pre-legislative scrutiny, as was briefed out by the department some months ago? What I find remarkable is that in the absence of a Bill officials do not have time to produce Section 60 orders for the different professions—except for one measure, which, apparently, is to arrange for the regulation of a few hundred public health doctors within the HCPC. This is a measure that nobody wants and will have no impact on public protection, yet this is where the department’s energies are going to be in the next few months.

The Queen’s Speech was silent on public health measures, and I join my noble friend Lord Faulkner in asking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whether he is confident that the Government will bring forward regulations as soon as possible on standardised packaging of cigarettes and tobacco. The Government were dramatically defeated in this House on this measure. The will of Parliament is quite clear. The job of the Government is to make sure that those regulations come before Parliament before the election.

The Government are also silent on other public health measures. My noble friend Lord Rooker identified the failure of the responsibility deal, when it comes to sugar, of companies who take action only on the less popular brands. We see the same problem in relation to salt and alcohol. We are entitled to expect a more proactive policy.

There is silence on the NHS. When the 2012 Health and Social Care Bill went through Parliament, we warned that it would be expensive and disruptive, and that it would fragment services and attack the NHS’s core values. How right we were. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, described it as a profound change—profound disaster, more like. This month, waiting times are at a six-year high. Almost 3 million people are now on waiting lists—up by half a million since 2010. The cancer target of patients starting treatment within 62 days is being missed. GP services have become less accessible and it is becoming harder to get a GP appointment. Mental health services have been cut, despite Parliament enacting parity of esteem between mental health services and other services. Walk-in centres are being closed, the latest being in Worcester. Minor injuries units are being drastically cut back, the latest being the one in Cannock. Dentistry is also being neglected. The failure of the NHS and social care to work together to provide integrated services is readily apparent. Access to primary care becomes more difficult. No wonder accident and emergency departments become more stretched. Hospital beds are then at a premium and the discharge of patients becomes more difficult because adult social care has been decimated.

The Government’s response has been woefully inadequate. They finally produced their Better Care Fund, which does not start until next year, and the fund is in trouble. There is little confidence either locally or, apparently, in the Treasury that the money to be transferred from the NHS—because it is not new money—will be spent on community services, which would reduce pressure on the NHS. Ministers do nothing, just as they do nothing about the shocking failure to implement the recommendations following the Winterbourne View scandal. Ministers guaranteed that those recommendations would be implemented in full by the end of the month.

When the Prime Minister was leader of the Opposition, he promised no more top-down restructuring of the NHS. Some promise, my Lords. Instead, we have £3 billion wasted on this highly damaging change, fragmentation of services, longer waiting times, less accessibility and plunging morale. No wonder the risk register has yet to be published; no wonder the Queen’s Speech is silent on the NHS. It is surely a symbol—is it not?—of a Government who have run out of ideas and run out of steam, putting party before people and so patently failing to meet the challenges of this country.

Abu Qatada

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I would not want to comment on the sense of timing of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister has already referred to listening to the court. In terms of lost days, he will know that the Prime Minister told the BBC that his officials had checked with the European court the deadline for the appeal. Will the Minister give the House of Lords chapter and verse as to when the Home Office checked with the European court and what the court said?

Police: Racism

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend that there is a failure on this occasion. What has happened is that the police themselves have recognised that there is a problem. It was the police officers themselves who raised these allegations and are dealing with them. That is the encouraging sign, indicating that there is not the institutional racism that has been alleged existed in the Met in the past. I am very grateful therefore that that is happening and that those matters are being dealt with.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, on the question of leadership I take this opportunity to commend the police commissioner on his robust action in relation to the matter to which the Minister has just referred. Can I, however, take the noble Lord back to the Statement that he gave yesterday? He told us that the Home Secretary is considering whether an independent inquiry should be established into allegations of corruption in relation to the original investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. If the Home Secretary agrees to set up an independent inquiry, will the Minister consider passing on to her the suggestion that that inquiry might look at what progress has been made by the Metropolitan Police since the Macpherson report was published?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s opening remarks. As regards his other remarks about the Statement I made yesterday, I think he will remember that there was a general consensus in the House that this was a matter on which we needed to move relatively slowly. I can therefore say to him that things have not moved on much further in the 12 hours since I made that Statement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is therefore still considering what to do, and will go on considering those matters while the Met’s internal review continues. I will also make sure that she takes note of the comments that the noble Lord has made when she comes to make a final decision on that matter.

Stephen Lawrence

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for repeating the Urgent Question in another place as a Statement in your Lordships’ House. I echo his remarks and regret that it has taken so long to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Like the noble Lord, I also pay tribute to the Lawrence family for their tireless efforts to seek justice.

The House will know that during the investigation by the Metropolitan Police five suspects were arrested but not convicted. During the investigation many suggested that the murder was racially motivated and that the handling of the case by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. After widespread concern, a public inquiry was held, led by Sir William Macpherson. This examined the original Metropolitan Police investigation and concluded that the force was institutionally racist.

As the Minister said, allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on at least two previous occasions. They were looked at first by the Macpherson inquiry itself, which concluded that no collusion or corruption was proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder. Then in July 2006 the IPCC announced that it had asked the Metropolitan Police to look into alleged claims of police corruption that may have helped to hide the killers of Stephen Lawrence. In 2007, the IPCC said that it had found no evidence to substantiate these allegations. However, within weeks of the convictions earlier this year, the issue of corruption in the Lawrence case surfaced again when the Independent made allegations about a detective in the Lawrence case which had previously been made in the Guardian in 2002 and by the BBC in 2006.

Doreen Lawrence has called on the Home Secretary to order a second public inquiry into the police investigation of the murder of her son. The call for a Macpherson 2 comes as the Metropolitan Police has said that it has been unable, after a month of investigation, to establish whether it passed potentially crucial files detailing investigations by its anti-corruption command to the police inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death held in 1998.

Those are some of the contexts in which we consider the Government’s response today, and I should like to ask the noble Lord a number of questions. He said that the Metropolitan Police is currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations. Can he give me any indication of when that review is likely to be concluded? In view of the need for public confidence in any internal inquiry before consideration is given to a wider public inquiry, given that it is currently an internal review and given the current state of concern about these issues in relation to the Metropolitan Police, does the Minister consider that some assistance from HMIC might be appropriate? Does he accept that only an independent inquiry is ultimately likely to give the public confidence?

We understand that the Home Secretary is, as the Minister said, considering this matter at the moment but there has been an indication that one of her concerns is cost. Can the noble Lord assure me that cost will not be a factor when the Home Secretary comes to order an inquiry? Does he also accept that there are very powerful reasons for holding such an inquiry, including the seriousness of the allegations, the fact that they have recurred on a number of occasions and that the Inquiries Act 2005 states that inquiries should be held if particular events have caused or are capable of causing public concern? I suggest that that threshold may well have been reached.

If there is to be an inquiry—either a continuation of Macpherson or a new public inquiry—I should also like to ask the Government whether they will consider adding to its terms of reference consideration of progress made by the Metropolitan Police following the Macpherson finding of institutional racism and whether further changes need to be made in the light of more recent racism allegations, which I think will be the subject of an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House very soon.

Perhaps I may also refer the Minister to a number of comments made by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper in relation to the wider allegations of alleged racism involving Metropolitan Police officers reported in recent weeks. It is very important that the IPCC carries out a swift investigation of this. She has also suggested an urgent referral to the IPCC of new information regarding alleged corruption at the time of the original police inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I should also say that we on these Benches give full support for the efforts of the commissioner and commend his response to the recent allegations, including operational changes. There would, I think, be some real benefit if one saw Macpherson reconvened with the specific remit of investigating the corruption but also looking at the progress that the Met has made in tackling racism in the light of recent allegations and in the context of the stance that the commissioner has taken in recent weeks.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the commissioner in these matters, and I am also grateful that he stressed that we have already had two reports—from Macpherson and the IPCC—both of which were unable to find any corruption in the original inquiry. However, obviously that does not mean that we should not look again at these matters and that is why in this Statement, made in response to a Question, we made it clear that initially the Met will hold an internal review. The noble Lord asked when it will conclude. Obviously I cannot give him an answer to that. If it is to be an internal review, it would not be appropriate for me, the Home Secretary or any other Home Office Minister to say how it should be done and when it should report or whether at this stage any assistance from HMIC might be appropriate, as the noble Lord suggested. As the Statement makes clear, my right honourable friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness and is currently considering her decision on these matters. It would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt that decision. That is why the Statement makes it clear that she offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss these matters and that she will keep the House updated as and when appropriate.

The noble Lord then asked whether an independent inquiry was the only solution or whether we should have a continuation of Macpherson, and whether cost would influence us in these matters. I can give him an assurance that, within limits obviously—we do not want another Saville inquiry, which the noble Lord will remember cost something of the order of £100 million or £200 million—we will not let cash constrain or limit us too much.

The noble Lord went on to ask whether we would consider the terms of reference for any new inquiry. Again, until we decide whether we will have an inquiry, which is a decision for my right honourable friend, I cannot speculate on that on this occasion.

I have tried to answer every question that the noble Lord has put to me, but I have given him no answers whatever because this is not the moment or stage at which to do so. However, my right honourable friend is considering these matters and they are being taken very seriously indeed. She will consider them in due course.

Criminal Records Bureau

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot answer that question, but I can say that in the 10 years in which this system has been running some 130,000 potentially unsuitable people have been prevented from working with children and vulnerable adults. The noble Earl can use that figure against the figure of 31 million and work out his own percentage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that it is the Government’s view that in general the establishment of CRB checks and the system that came from it was essential to ensure that vulnerable people are protected? Having said that, and coming back to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, does he agree that part of the problem is overzealous interpretation by a number of organisations? Perhaps the Government’s best efforts should be put into working with those organisations on guidance, information and education, so as their decisions on the number of people who need CRB checks might be more proportionate.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept that it was necessary to bring in the CRB and these checks, but things had become out of proportion. That is why my right honourable friend announced her review and is why we want to scale things back to allow people to take proper responsibility for these matters. That is what we are trying to do, and it was what we were trying to do in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, but we will obviously keep these matters under review. If we can further scale down the checks without putting children or vulnerable adults at risk, we will do so.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2012

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations concern fees charged for visa, immigration and nationality services. The fees paid by those making visa, nationality and immigration applications must be specified in regulations made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Regulations that set fees exceeding the administrative cost of processing an application must be approved by both Houses before they are made; this procedural requirement is imposed by Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Regulations dealing with fees at or below cost are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The intention is to introduce two sets of regulations on 6 April that will replace existing fees regulations. The first set of regulations will deal with above-cost fees and must be approved by Parliament before it is made, and it is a draft of these regulations that is before the House today. The second set, dealing with fees set at or below cost, does not require prior approval from Parliament and has already been made. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 March. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated, and I am happy to take points on any of the fees proposals here today.

In general we are proposing to limit the majority of increases to 2 per cent. For example, we propose to increase the short-term visit visa applications by 2 per cent, as we recognise the importance of the visitor route to the United Kingdom economy. This is still about half the actual cost to the UK Border Agency of processing this type of application. Increases to fees that do not follow this approach include tier 1 general extensions of leave; these will increase by 50 per cent. This route is open only to those currently in the UK on a tier 1 general visa that is due to expire during 2013 and confers benefits including unrestricted access to the United Kingdom labour market, and ultimately the ability to apply for indefinite leave to remain. The new fee better reflects the value of these benefits.

Fees for tier 2 visas for migrants coming to the UK to work for a sponsor will rise by 20 per cent to £480; an incremental step towards our objective of aligning fees for the original entry visa with the fee paid in the United Kingdom to extend stay in this route. Thirdly, for media representatives coming to the UK to work for an overseas employer on a long-term assignment, this fee is being increased to align with the tier 2 visa fee to reflect the similarities between the two routes. Fourthly, for tier 2 intra-company transfer visas of less than 12 months’ duration and extensions under this route in the UK, this increase reflects the benefits conferred by this route.

The tier 4 visa fee is being increased to cover the full costs of processing these visas. In the current economic climate we can no longer subsidise these visas. The visa for extended family members of refugees and those with humanitarian protection coming to the UK is also moving to cost recovery. We are aligning it with similar settlement visa routes following changes that were introduced in the Immigration Rules in 2011.

Licence fees to those organisations that sponsor migrants in the UK are increasing to better reflect the administrative costs. For large organisations sponsoring employees to work under tier 2, the fees will be £1,500, while for small businesses and charities we will charge £500.

New fees being introduced include a graduate entrepreneur route in the points-based system. This route is being developed for those who have been identified by United Kingdom universities as having developed world-class innovative ideas or entrepreneurial skills but have yet to meet the requirements of the tier 1 entrepreneur route. This will allow them to develop their business in the United Kingdom

The new fees will cover extending the mobile biometric enrolment service to include applications for indefinite leave to remain, widening the range of services that we can offer our customers, and enabling those who have come to the UK under the tier 1 exceptional talent route that launched last year to extend their stay; this will ensure that we retain the skills and talents of those whom we have attracted to work and base themselves here.

Finally, the new fees will also cover providing certain stateless persons with the ability to acquire—or renounce—the status of British protected person. In addition, the fees paid by dependants of members of the Armed Forces will be frozen at current levels in recognition of our commitments under the Armed Forces covenant.

Legal migration brings economic, cultural and social benefits to the United Kingdom. We will continue to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality send a clear signal overseas that the country will go on welcoming the brightest and the best, and these proposals support that message.

We also continue to monitor the economic, equality and diversity impacts of our changes and to ensure that our fees continue to be priced at levels which make them competitive when compared with those in other countries.

I believe that these regulations provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system that noble Lords will want, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Once again, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as we deal with orders and regulations in Grand Committee. I am grateful for his very persuasive arguments in favour of these regulations, but I have one or two points to raise.

Clearly, the regulations are about making UKBA pay its way in the world. Does there come a point where providing additional services on a premium basis and dramatically increasing the cost of applying for particular forms run the risk of effectively selling British citizenship? How precisely does the Minister assess the value to an individual who is making a particular application? That is how the amount is now set, it seems. It is not the amount it costs to run or provide the service, but the assessment by UKBA or the Minister of the supposed value to the applicants of the benefits that accrue to them. It would be interesting to know how those figures are arrived at.

What impact does the Minister think that the increases will have on the total number of people applying to come to the UK or to stay once they are already here? Will he say a little more about how much additional money will be raised for UKBA? Some increases are higher than others, but the noble Lord referred to an average of 2 per cent. Clearly, it would be interesting to know the impact on UKBA’s income.

Another point raised in the debate on these regulations in the other place was in relation to Armed Forces personnel and charges for visas. The Minister there referred to the relationship to the military covenant. Can the noble Lord explain a little more about this issue?

Finally, I come to the impact on business and the UK economy. The noble Lord will know that the CBI has condemned the Government’s decision to increase visa fees for working migrants and their sponsors as a bitter blow to UK business. Neil Carberry, director for employment and skills policy at the CBI employers’ group, was scathing about the cost upgrades. He said:

“The shock announcement that some work permit charges will rise between 20 and 60 per cent will come as a bitter blow to businesses. Firms have yet to see the improvements in customer service they were promised, in return for the last tranche of inflation-busting rises last year”.

There are two points here. First, there is the concern that increases in fees will be made but the service will not improve. That is a very important issue that the noble Lord needs to address. Secondly, there is the impact on the UK. I do not know whether the noble Lord has had time to study the article this morning by Willie Walsh, the boss of British Airways, who talks about the attitude of business people in China investing in the UK. Essentially, the perceived discouragement of overseas business men and women coming to this country, combined with policies on airport capacity, is having a chilling effect on investment in this country from countries such as China.

I watched the Budget Statement and was very disappointed that it had very little to say about how we are going to get this country growing again. The Minister may say that that is a little wider than the Home Office’s usual brief, but how policy is developed in relation to immigration and to fees can play an important part. It would be good to know how the Minister will respond to the concern of many businesses. This is also very much related to the issue of higher education and the ludicrous restrictions made on overseas students coming into legitimate institutions in this country. All that is doing is undermining one of our most successful economic sectors.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, some of the reactions to the increase in fees are well known. They are exactly what any Government of any colour would say—that charges should reflect the level of service and be appropriate to it. The problem is that we hear far too often that customer service is relatively poor. It was described to me as a “litany of minor problems”. If you accumulate a set of minor problems, in totality they become more than just minor.

There is a reputational issue, too. I was given the comparison of two people coming to the UK and to Germany; the one who arrived at Frankfurt would be dealt with there and then, whereas the one coming to the UK would have had to send his passport to the embassy in his country in advance. Obviously, there are different arrangements depending on different individuals but, in general, it is a very telling point. Businesses will stop and ask themselves where they should choose to go on that basis. I have been told anecdotal evidence of companies beginning to move their functions away from the UK because of the long-term path of the immigration system. It is, of course, more than just a concern about fees; it is the direction of policy and the complexity of our rules that are in question. I mention complexity in this context because those who have to find their way around the system, being charged what are perceived as high fees—and I hear the point made about the cost—have higher expectations of service. It is quite telling that many businesses engage lawyers and maybe other professionals to advise on how to cope with the system.

The Merits Committee, of which I am a member, commented in its report to the House of the limited analysis of the impact of the increases on business. The letter from the CBI published in the report was really quite measured and clear; it did not use extreme language in any way. It pointed out that in the view of the CBI,

“employers have yet to see the improvements that were promised on the eve of last year's increase, or that of 2010”,

and that,

“where UKBA is seeking to charge firms commercial rates, and is seeking a return … firms have the right to expect a higher level of service”.

I have a question that is obvious, to me, but it may be too soon to give an answer to it. What would be the effect on efficiency and level of service of splitting the border agency into two component parts? It was against this background that I rather blinked to see the proposal for a premium sponsor scheme. I put down a Motion directed to this but decided to withdraw it and simply raise the points during this debate. I have real concerns about this being the thin end of a wedge of our creating a first class and, to use a railway operator’s language, a standard class which is really second or third class. The service is private, but it is a public service as well. I reflect that if there is an attitude that immigration is not of general social value, then that impacts on the whole policy. As I said, it is a public as well as a private service.

Schedule 5 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Modification) Order 2012

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, once again, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his full explanation of the order before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I support the general thrust of what he said and will support the order. I just want to ask a couple of points. Could he say a little more about the consultation process? I note from paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that,

“Laboratories and law enforcement staff were consulted”.

Were other agencies also consulted that might have an interest in this area? I also want to ask him about paragraph 12.2. Very helpfully, the Explanatory Memorandum points out,

“The outcome will be subject to expert review in 2013”.

Obviously these are sensitive issues, but I wondered whether the outcome of that review in general would be made available in the public domain and whether there might be an opportunity at that point for further debate in Parliament.

Clearly the UK remains in a state of alert against the threat of the use of biological weapons, and that is absolutely right. The Minister will know that his own department and the police have suffered reductions in their budgets. Will he confirm that that has not had an impact on our capacity to deal with the particular threat posed by these biological substances?

The impact assessment, which I found helpful, makes it clear that, in relation to biological agents, inspections are carried out by the Counter Terrorism Security Advisors, who are located within police forces and are responsible for providing specialist protective security advice to local organisations, with their work co-ordinated by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office. My understanding is that the CTSAs have the responsibility to undertake security assessments of laboratories holding Schedule 5 substances and, as stated above, have the power to require improvements to their security arrangements operation. These are located within police forces.

I want to ask the Minister about police and crime commissioners. Will he assure me that the Home Office is satisfied that police and crime commissioners would not be in a position to inhibit the work of these people to carry out their security assessments of laboratories? What would happen if a police and crime commissioner sought to intervene with a chief constable to say that they did not think that this was a particular priority? If the noble Lord thinks that I am on a flight of fantasy, I would remind him of the actions of the Deputy Mayor of London, Mr Kit Malthouse, who has sought to interfere with the Metropolitan Police in the exercise of its operational responsibilities when it comes to phone hacking. The noble Lord was not, alas, able to be present for our debates on the police and crime commissioners except, I think, at the very end, but we raised those issues. So I think that it is entirely relevant for me to ask that question in relation to ensuring the integrity of our national security and ensuring that any perversity that might come from certain elected police commissioners would not in any way interfere with overall government responsibility for national security.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, rather like the debate that we had on the drugs order yesterday, I think it is quite hard for lay people—certainly such as I am—to judge proposals such as this. We have to rely on the experts and are grateful that they are there to advise. My noble friend the Minister has referred to the balance that has been struck. I take the point about the need for there to be a balance, although I was interested to read in the notes attached to the impact assessment the list of criteria used by the Lightfoot review as to which biological agents should be included or excluded from the list. In particular, it was quite interesting that ease of production was one of them, since a substance, a pathogen or toxin was of a level of danger or not. I do not see that as affected by the ease of production, but I suppose that the whole area of risk is quite tricky.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I looked at the paragraph on consultation and cannot believe that the health services were not consulted. The impact of any of these getting loose, as it were, is clearly relevant to them. Could the Minister say a word about their involvement in the process?

Apart from those questions, I support the order.