Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Monday 5th December 2022

(2 years ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Just to take up the points that the Minister kindly referred to, he said that this would not involve additional costs. Surely an impact assessment would have talked about how much take-up there would be. If the take-up is different, the costs will be different, because more people will seek the relief. Without empirical examples, we do not know.

The Minister said that the relevant Minister was correct when he said that this was compatible with the European convention. I would have thought this was a legal matter and should have had a report from the Attorney-General, rather than a Minister who was implicitly involved in it.

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - -

I will deal first with the point about the impact assessment. As I say, as a matter of practice on taxes, the requirement to hold an impact assessment in the sense described by the noble Lord is not normally followed. However, as I say, the department closely scrutinised this question and came to the conclusions I already outlined.

On the obligation to the European Convention on Human Rights at paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires a Minister presenting a piece of legislation to certify whether it is compatible. It is not normal practice that that attestation is signed by the Attorney-General. Plainly, all these matters are subject to legal advice, as the noble Lord would expect.