Immigration: Public Services

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I believe that all Members of this House recognise the importance of a controlled migration system that brings us the best and is the best for this country. Only by means of a controlled migration system can we have an effective, workable society that is integrated and settled.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Today, we have had the opportunity to hear from the authentic voice of the Conservative Party—from behind the Minister.

The previous Labour Government put in place a migration impacts fund. Local authorities and health trusts, for example, could then apply for a share of the funding to support efforts to reduce the impact of migration on public services. It was certainly not a panacea to solve all problems, but it did help to raise new funding to support infrastructure. However, the fund was scrapped by the coalition Government within a few months, and little was then done to ensure that support was still given where it was needed.

We have also said that EU funding should be made available to areas impacted by rapid migration to help with public services such as schools and GP services. Are the Government supporting, or will they support, that step?

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, many of your Lordships will have negotiated a variety of agreements and arrangements, been involved in the toing and froing of proposals and counterproposals, and experienced the feeling of, “Okay, enough, let us move on”.

I do not equate that with this issue. I am realistic enough to understand where the Government have got to, but it is not far enough. From my privileged, comfortable position, compared with the asylum seekers, the subject of these amendments, I cannot leave it there. I do not feel, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, that I have done my job and done more.

I want to make it clear that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. To deprive an individual of liberty for the purposes of immigration control should be an absolute last resort. It should be comparatively rare and for the shortest possible time. At the last stage but one of this Bill, the Government introduced their amendment for automatic judicial oversight. We heard then references to detainees still being able to apply for bail and to access legal advice at any time, and so on. That painted a picture which, though technically correct, did not accord with the realities described to me over the years.

The noble and learned Lord introduced the automatic hearing after six months as a “proportionate response”, and said that earlier referral might result in work for both the tribunal and the Home Office at a time when an individual’s removal from the country was planned and imminent. So I was pleased last night that the Minister in the Commons, “after careful consideration”, moved a reduction from six months to four months to reflect the fact that the vast majority are detained for fewer than four months.

At the end of last December, on the latest figures that we have, 2,607 people were detained. Of these, 530—roughly 20% of the detainee population—had been detained for less than four months but longer than two months. Those are the numbers that my amendment is about, although they are 530 individuals, not just faceless numbers.

The impact of immigration detention, which is not a sanction—it is not punishment for wrongdoing—is considerable and reference has rightly been made to the particular impact on mental health. I look forward to Stephen Shaw’s further work and hope that it will ameliorate conditions, but there must always be a significant impact. I do not know, though I can speculate on, the Government’s reason for moving from the proportionate six months to four months, but if they can move, I suggest they can move further. In the mix of assessing what is proportionate, the impact of administrative detention must be a significant factor. Let us reduce it as much as possible. That is why I propose two months.

I take this opportunity to say, too, that in all this I do not want to lose sight of the objective of improving the whole returns process. Alternatives to detention with case managers who are not decision-makers would be more humane, less costly and more efficient. There is plenty of experience of that in other countries. An improved returns system would reduce the burden on tribunals and the Home Office. It may be trite but it is true that efficiency is much of the answer. I hope noble Lords will be sympathetic to my proposal to reduce it still more, and take us further on the journey that the Government have led us on with regard to the period when there must be an automatic judicial oversight of each individual’s position.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In the Commons last night, the government Minister confirmed that the Government accepted that there should be judicial oversight of administrative immigration detention, and that was why they had previously tabled a Motion, the effect of which would be that individuals would automatically be referred to the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after their detention began, or, if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the person within the first six months, six months after that consideration.

That amendment was not accepted in this House, which again carried a Motion providing for a 28-day period of administrative immigration detention, after which the Secretary of State could apply to extend detention in exceptional circumstances. The Commons has again rejected the amendment from this House and has instead passed a government amendment reducing the timing of an automatic bail referral from six to four months, since, apparently, the vast majority of persons are detained for less than four months. Will the Government confirm that that bail hearing after four months of detention will be automatic and will not depend on the individual in detention having to initiate the application?

This is an issue which this House has already sent back to the Commons twice. Consideration obviously has to be given to the role of this unelected House in the legislative process as a revising Chamber, inviting the Commons to think again in a situation where the elected Commons and the Government have made some movement—albeit not enough to meet the views of this House—on the length of administrative immigration detention without automatic judicial oversight.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made a powerful speech. I will say a word in response to it. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and I were focusing on the “periphery” last week and supporting a “fudge”, as he put it. Your Lordships need to focus on the noble Lord’s amendment. It provides that, after 28 days, there would be no possibility of detention of a person for immigration reasons other than in exceptional circumstances. Last week I found that not to be something that I could support and I still cannot support it, because a person can be detained only for the purpose of removal and only for a reasonable period for that purpose. There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days to remove a person who has been detained for immigration reasons. There has to be discussion with the country to which the individual will be removed and persons being removed often do not co-operate with their removal. There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days. Of course, the individual concerned is also entitled at any time to require a judicial assessment of whether it is appropriate for them to continue to be detained for immigration purposes. I am pleased that the Government have moved to a four-month period and I think that is the right result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support the amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this afternoon. I supported her on earlier occasions when we debated these issues. I am particularly pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who has returned us to an aspect of the debate which we discussed at earlier stages.

Members of your Lordships’ House may recall the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, during our earlier debates. She focused on the effects on the unborn child of being detained in these stressful circumstances. I referred to work by the late, eminent psychiatrist, Professor Kenneth McCall, who described the effects later in life on children who had been affected by traumatic events that they had experienced in the womb. On the other side of that coin, of course, the world-famous violinist Yehudi Menuhin said that he believed that he learned his love of music during the time that he was in his mother’s womb. So it may be that the empirical evidence needs to be extended and much more work needs to be done around these things—but our own common sense and knowledge of our own human development probably take us in that direction.

But this is not just about concern for the unborn child. The noble Baroness quite rightly reminded us of the recommendations of Stephen Shaw, which were at the very heart of the debate when we looked at this earlier in our proceedings. He of course recommended that there should be an absolute ban—so this falls a long way short of his recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her phrase, “very exceptional”, is reminding the Government that it cannot be right for us to have pregnant women held in detention in these ways.

I was particularly pleased, like the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to read the remarks of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Enfield, Southgate, David Burrowes, who spoke so well in the other place yesterday. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply, he will respond to the concerns that David Burrowes raised and to the remarks of the Royal College of Midwives—referred to earlier by the noble Baroness—which were quite categorical in saying that we should never keep women in these circumstances.

I have one or two questions to put to the noble and learned Lord. What kind of pre-departure accommodation will be made available when a pregnant woman is being held? Will he say a word about that and will he talk about how those particular needs will be met? Will he also assure us that pregnant women will not, for instance, as has happened in the past, be picked up in dawn raids, put in the back of vans and taken miles away to accommodation, with appalling consequences for the women in those circumstances? There are accounts of nauseous experiences, of vomiting and of people being incredibly distressed by those kinds of experiences. This should be in very exceptional circumstances, as the noble Baroness said.

Finally, I underline the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, about the second part of Amendment 85E. An odd phrase has been included at this late stage to say that,

“a person who, apart from this section, has power to authorise the detention must have regard to the woman’s welfare”.

Those words—“apart from this section”—are, at the very best, ambiguous, and I really cannot see what point they have. Could the noble and learned Lord enlighten us when he comes to reply?

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I could add to the point just made and express the hope that the noble and learned Lord will not only respond to questions raised in this short debate in this House but be doubly determined to do so. I find it extraordinary that when our amendments were discussed in the Commons last night, although they have the not surprising procedure that a Minister opens the debate, there was no reply by a Minister at the end of the debate. So all the legitimate questions raised in that debate after the Minister had finished speaking were not answered at all by the Government. I know very little about House of Commons procedures —that is quite obvious—but it is certainly a fairly remarkable procedure to have a debate where questions are asked of the Government but there is no Minister replying at the end. I hope that that is a defect that the noble and learned Lord will be able to rectify when he replies to this debate.

We accept that the Government have moved on this issue to a position of not allowing the detention of pregnant women beyond 72 hours—or up to a week with the Secretary of State’s approval. This House of course wanted the Government to go further and provide additional safeguards, which were reflected in the amendments sent to the Commons. In the Commons last night, the Minister said that the Government had tabled amendments that made it clear that,

“pregnant women will be detained for the purpose of removal only if they are shortly to be removed from the UK or if there are exceptional circumstances that justify the detention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 486.]

As has been said, the Minister went on to say that the guidance will also make it clear that the guidance would also make it clear that the power to detain should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. Why does the government amendment passed last night in the Commons refer to “exceptional circumstances” and not to “very exceptional circumstances”, which is and will continue to be used in the guidance?

What in the Government’s view is the difference in this context between “exceptional circumstances” and “very exceptional circumstances”, since it is they who have decided not to use the same wording in the Bill as is and will continue to be used in the guidelines? Through her amendment, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett seeks a credible and reassuring answer to that question, and I hope that the Government can provide it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I will begin by answering the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The provision does refer to “exceptional circumstances”. The guidance as it exists talks of only “very exceptional circumstances” applying for the detention of pregnant women, and that will continue to be the policy that is applied in the context of the provision. I reiterate what was said in the other place last night: it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it will be considered appropriate for this provision on detention to be employed.

Investor Visas: Money Laundering

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

At the present time, I am not aware that any tier 1 visas have been revoked. Of course, tier 1 visas lead on to an application for indefinite leave to remain. When that application is made, one issue that is addressed is any suggestion of criminality.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, as I understand it, according to the ONS, 76 fewer grants in the tier 1 investor category, which is the category for the really wealthy, were made in 2015, following changes introduced in November 2014, including the introduction of money laundering checks. In October 2015, Transparency International, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, said that,

“it is reasonable to infer that a proportion of money invested into the UK by Russian and Chinese Tier 1 investors is linked to crimes of corruption”.

Do the Government agree with that statement with respect to the situation prior to 2015 and, if they do not, why do they think that there has been such a significant reduction in the number of tier 1 investor grants made in 2015 compared with previous years?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, Transparency International’s report was looked at and considered by this Government. However, it referred to a period prior to April 2015 of “blind faith”. There was no such blind faith. As I indicated, when an overseas investor made a qualifying investment, he made it through a regulated authority and was therefore checked. As for the numbers, it will be a matter of notice that the sum required for investment has been doubled from £1 million to £2 million. Over and above that, the noble Lord will bear in mind the relevance of the exchange rate over the relevant period, as well. The rouble went from 50 roubles to the pound to 100 roubles to the pound, with the result that the required investment from someone in Russia is now 200 million roubles.

Banks: Fraud

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Countess. In addition to these initiatives, we also see that telephone companies are taking steps to cut down the time in which a phone line can remain open when a bank telephones a customer, because there are circumstances in which fraudsters will attempt to use that open time to perpetrate a fraud.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I am not sure that the Government’s response reflects the severity of the situation. After all, in 2015, financial fraud losses across payment cards, remote banking and cheques totalled, I think, some £755 million—an increase of 26% compared with the previous year. The ONS estimates that there have been 5.1 million incidents of online fraud in the last year. Why have the Government not even started, with the banking industry, to get a grip on this booming area of crime, which is adversely affecting so many people? If the noble and learned Lord believes the Government are taking action, when do the Government expect to see a downturn in such fraud?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. In 2015, 70% of fraud was stopped—70%. As regards the numbers, we have seen an increase in reported banking fraud, simply because this Government have instituted far better systems for identifying fraud and breaches of cybersecurity. With respect, it is not going up. The noble Lord observed that there was an increase in card fraud, but that is not the case. In fact, fraud in respect of credit cards reduced by 4% in the last reported years. Wider reporting of fraud is, as I say, a consequence of our having instituted far better systems for identifying breaches of cybersecurity. I simply remind the noble Lord that it is more than just the Joint Fraud Taskforce dealing with this. We have the national cybersecurity programme, a five-year strategy under which £90 million has already been expended on this; the National Cyber Security Centre; the Cyber Streetwise campaign for online security; Project Bloom for the task force on pension fraud; and the Insurance Fraud Taskforce. Indeed, the Chancellor has committed £1.9 billion to spend on cybersecurity.

Licensing Act 2003 (Her Majesty The Queen’s Birthday Licensing Hours) Order 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the order makes provision for the relaxation of licensing hours in England and Wales for the weekend of Her Majesty the Queen’s official birthday celebrations in June.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. Licensing hours have previously been extended for the Royal Wedding in 2011 and the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, as well as for the World Cup in 2014.

As noble Lords will be aware, this year Her Majesty the Queen is celebrating her 90th birthday. The Government consider this a nationally significant event, and many people will wish to celebrate the occasion. The Government are proposing to allow premises to remain open later on the weekend of Her Majesty’s official birthday in June. The order will allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Friday 10 and Saturday 11 June until 1 am on Saturday 11 and Sunday 12 June respectively. It will apply to premises’ licences and club premises’ certificates in England and Wales which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. These premises will be allowed to remain open without having to notify the licensing authority and police via a temporary event notice, as would usually be the case. Premises that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets, are not covered by the order.

The Licensing Act 2003 requires the Secretary of State to consult persons she considers appropriate before making a licensing hours order. The Home Office conducted a consultation with key partners, including representatives of licensing authorities, the police, police and crime commissioners, residents’ groups, the licensed trade and the Welsh Government. The consultation asked three questions. First, do you agree that the order should apply to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises? Secondly, do you agree that the order should apply to England and Wales? Thirdly, do you agree that the order should extend licensing hours until 1 am?

The responses were almost entirely positive. There are, of course, some risks associated with extending licensing hours. The national policing lead for alcohol agreed with the proposed order, but highlighted that the weekend coincides with Euro 2016 football matches, when there will be an increased risk of alcohol- related disorder.

The police and crime commissioners’ working group on alcohol raised concerns that a blanket extension to licensing hours may prove disruptive to planning police resources. It considered the system of temporary event notices a more appropriate means for licensed premises to extend their licensing hours as it provides the police and licensing authorities with a means to screen out unsuitable premises and plan for any additional policing requirements. The Government carefully considered these concerns. The Government are unaware of any reports of increased crime or disorder during previous occasions when licensing hours have been extended in this manner. Licensing hours were extended during the 2014 World Cup for a similar period and there were no reports of increased disorder as a result. This order has similar terms to the equivalent orders relating to the celebrations for Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the Royal Wedding. The relaxation is for a limited period and we believe this is appropriate to celebrate an occasion of this sort.

The Government are committed to reducing burdens on business and public bodies where possible. This licensing hours order will reduce the burden on businesses, which would otherwise need to use a temporary event notice to extend their opening hours, at a cost of £21. It will also reduce the burden on the licensing authorities that would have to process the notices. I hope noble Lords will agree that the licensing hours order is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose of the order, which we support. I had better indicate that right at the beginning, since the Minister may get the impression from some of the points I want to raise that perhaps we do not support the order—so I say from the start that we do.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the outcome of the consultation on the order. It states that all the “partner agencies” that were consulted replied in the affirmative to the three questions being asked, with the exception of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It seems that the APCC considered the order,

“disruptive to planning police resources”,

and felt that it posed an,

“increased risk of alcohol-related disorder”.

I have to say that its concerns are immediately swatted aside in the Explanatory Memorandum in one sentence:

“However, the Government is not aware of any evidence of alcohol-related disorder during periods covered by previous Licensing Hours Orders”.

It is interesting that there is no impact assessment to address this point and that related to police resources, among others. It is also interesting that the organisation whose concerns have been, frankly, so abruptly dismissed by the Government in the Explanatory Memorandum is the one that represents and speaks on behalf of the elected police and crime commissioners, whom the Government created to increase public accountability of the police and to ensure that, through them, public concerns could be reflected and addressed. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that, if the elected, accountable police and crime commissioners—who should know what the impact of the order may be in their own areas better than the Government—express concerns that are contrary to the Government’s stance, their concerns will carry little weight.

Perhaps the Minister could comment on that and, in the absence of an impact assessment, perhaps he could at least expand on the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum—which I quote again—that,

“the Government is not aware of any evidence of alcohol-related disorder during periods covered by previous Licensing Hours Orders”.

Does that sentence mean that in the additional hours covered by previous licensing hours orders there were no incidents at all throughout the country of alcohol-related disorder? If that is the case, frankly, that is unbelievable. Or is it meant to mean that the total number of incidents of alcohol-related disorder on the nights when there were extended hours under previous orders was no greater in total than the number of such incidents on a normal night without extended hours?

Railways: Open Access Applications

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord, because open access has raised this very valid issue of the inequity of application of track fees and the associated costs. Notwithstanding the reports that have been done by, for example, the CMA, which highlighted the importance of competition, the Government’s position remains that we of course support competition but need to ensure equality of access, both for those operating the franchise and for those who come in through open access.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This Question refers to taking into account the interests of passengers and the Office of Rail and Road. At the end of last year, the consumer group Which? lodged a “super complaint” to the Office of Rail and Road, calling for major improvements to make it easier for passengers to claim refunds for delays and cancellations. The Office of Rail and Road called for an improvement in passenger compensation arrangements by this October, under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, this has now been delayed by the Government via a statutory instrument until October 2017. Can the Minister explain how delaying improved passenger compensation arrangements is an example of taking into account the interests of passengers?

Airport Expansion: Road and Rail Upgrades

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is for the Mayor of London to review both those issues. But I say to my noble friend that with any salary paid to any public servant serving in any government—central, devolved or local—public scrutiny is important and needs to be reflected.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

A newspaper report today said that the Government’s decision on airport expansion in the south-east could be pushed back to September at the earliest, and possibly later, because of a government decision-making log-jam caused by the EU referendum. Do the Government stand by their position that a decision will be announced in the summer, and, if so, can the Minister say on what date the Government consider that this coming summer will end?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I say to the noble Lord, who has wide experience, that you should not always believe what you read in the papers. The Government’s position, as I have said, is that we intend to conclude the additional work around the issues and the concerns rightly raised about the environment and noise pollution in the summer. He asked for a specific date but, as I have said, I cannot give that at this time.

Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Code of Practice) Regulations 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I think the code of practice is absolutely excellent and I have no comment on it, other than to praise it. I am absolutely delighted that the Modern Slavery Act includes these powers on ships.

I hope the Minister will forgive me for raising an issue that is not strictly on board ship. I remain, with others, very concerned about smaller ports. I have two questions, but I do not necessarily expect the Minister to be able to answer them today. First, what are the powers and code of practice in relation to ports in England and Wales, particularly the smaller ports that have regular ferry services but are not in the larger group? Secondly, the particular port I have in mind, which those of us concerned with modern slavery are especially worried about, is Holyhead. Holyhead does not appear to have a very good organisation at the moment for checking those who are coming through, who may in fact be being brought in for forced labour or sexual or other exploitation. Perhaps I could be told at some stage what is going to be done, or is already being done, about the smaller ports, with a really close look at what is happening in Holyhead.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and effect of this order, which brings into force a code of practice to be followed by constables and enforcement officers when arresting a person under the maritime enforcement powers set out in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Without the powers in the 2015 Act, law enforcement authorities are not in a position effectively to police modern slavery offences that take place in international waters, and do not have the power to stop or divert vessels in UK territorial waters.

Human trafficking and modern slavery do not occur only outside the United Kingdom. The National Crime Agency has reported that last year 3,266 people, of whom 928 were children, were identified as potential victims of trafficking in the United Kingdom, with that first figure being a 40% increase on the number of potential victims in 2014. The United Kingdom is predominantly a destination country for victims of trafficking but it is also a source and transit country. Last year, potential victims of trafficking found here were reported to be from 102 different countries of origin.

Of course, our police and border forces need to have the most effective means available to pursue, disrupt and bring to justice those engaged in human trafficking. The code covers arrest and obtaining information. Is that power restricted to the ship or vessel on which it is suspected that slavery or human trafficking is taking place, or does it cover any wider geographical area or port facilities used, or about to be used, by the ship, or other vessels supplying or servicing the ship?

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government are,

“working with the Scottish Government and Northern Irish Executive with a view to commencing the maritime powers in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 simultaneously across the United Kingdom on 31 May 2016”.

I am not sure whether the Minister said that that objective had now been achieved or it is still to be achieved. If it is the latter, what would the consequences be if it was not achieved by 31 May 2016?

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to consultation that has taken place on the draft code of practice and states that, in response to comments made,

“the Code was amended to improve provisions for record keeping by constables and enforcement officers, and enhance the information to be provided to arrested persons on the period of time likely to be spent in transit to a police station or other authorised place of detention”.

Were any other suggestions or requests made in the consultation in relation to the code of practice that were not taken on board by the Government? If so, what did they cover?

Finally, were any issues raised by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner about the code of practice, and is he satisfied with the wording of the code and its consistency, for example, with other relevant codes of practice?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to your Lordships. I shall begin by addressing the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—in particular in the context of her mixed metaphor. Border officials are maintained at ports, particularly ones where there are commercial operations going in and out of the country. The United Kingdom has more than 11,000 miles of coastline and the demands that that raises are considerable. To try and meet those demands, I understand that field agents are also deployed to respond to intelligence about arrivals in smaller ports. There is also a system of self-reporting that operates from some of these ports. However, with regard to the particular issues mentioned in respect of Holyhead, I undertake to write to the noble and learned Baroness to outline what our position is and what the views of the border officials are with regard to operations there, in light of the concerns that have been raised.

I turn now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. With regard to the question of arrest and information, the powers of arrest are limited, as I understand it, to the vessel in question.

It was proposed that, subject to agreement with Scotland and Northern Ireland, commencement would take place on 31 May. Very recent intelligence suggests that there is still an issue to be bottomed out—if I can put it that way—with the Northern Ireland Executive over which jurisdiction would respond to any complaints regarding the conduct of a police officer who moved from one set of waters into another. In other words, if an English enforcement officer begins in England and Wales and moves into Northern Irish waters, are they then subject to the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland or do they remain subject to the jurisdiction in England? That has still to be resolved. If it cannot be resolved by 31 May then consideration would have to be given as to whether Part 3 of the Act could come into force on that date without the relevant code. That is being borne in mind.

On consultation, I am told that the consultation raised only a series of minor points with regard to the code and they were all taken into consideration.

With regard to issues concerning the independent commissioner and the code, the code was, of course, discussed with his office and he expressed that he was content with the code.

I hope that that deals with the points raised by noble Lords—

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Grand Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)]

My Lords, I shall begin by observing that this is a highly technical order.

The UK welcomes record numbers of visitors to come and enjoy our historic sites and experience our vibrant culture. In the year to June 2015, 9 million non-EEA visitors came to the United Kingdom, an increase of 0.5 million compared to 2014, with 1.9 million visit visas issued in 2015—an increase of 2% compared to the previous year. The Government are keen that the UK continues to attract business and leisure travellers, who will help our economy grow further. So in April 2015 we simplified the immigration system for people visiting the UK. We streamlined the visitor routes by reducing their number from 15 to four and created more flexibility for visitors to do a wider range of activities.

The order’s provisions, which are of a technical nature, have two basic purposes: first, to update provisions in the 2000 order relating to the extent to which entry clearance will have effect as leave to enter and to the categories of person who may be granted leave to enter automatically and who can be granted or refused leave orally; and, secondly, it makes provision about lapsing leave.

The order extends the period for which entry clearance takes effect as leave to enter for certain categories of visitor, who may, exceptionally, be granted a visa for a period that is longer than the usual six months. These are private medical treatment visitors, who may be granted a visa for up to 11 months, and academic visitors, who may be granted a visa for up to 12 months.

With the simplification of the visitor routes of entry, two routes—those for visitors coming to study for a short period and for parents coming to stay with their children at school here—are no longer treated as visitors. This was done to make their purpose clearer. The order makes a change to ensure that short-term students and parents of tier 4 child students are included in the categories of person to whom leave may be given or refused orally.

The order also makes changes to update the categories of person who may, provided they are a registered traveller, be granted leave to enter automatically if they enter by an e-gate. A registered traveller is a low-risk frequent traveller of a specified nationality who can benefit from quicker processing at the border by entering via an e-passport gate. This is available at most UK airports.

Finally, the order makes a change to ensure that leave granted to partners and children of certain British or settled Crown servants and British Council employees does not lapse after two years when they are accompanying their partner or parent on an overseas posting. The change also means that those granted leave under the family provisions of the Immigration Rules can complete their probationary period outside the United Kingdom before applying for indefinite leave.

I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I note that the Minister gave me a look when he started by saying that the order is of a highly technical nature, which I think was a suggestion that he hoped that I might not have too much to say, and I am able to grant him his wish. Since there appears to be nothing in the order of a controversial nature, there are no questions that I wish to raise or meaningful comments that I can make, so I will leave it at that and sit down.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am most obliged to the noble Lord for his brevity.

Border Force Budget 2016-17

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in response to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons. The Answer now confirms that the revenue budget for the Border Force for 2016-17 is some 10% less than it was in 2012-13, which no doubt explains in part why the Government are not in control of our borders. If they still maintain that they are in control of our borders, can the noble Lord say whether 100% checks are made on every lorry entering this country? I await to see whether he can give a more direct answer to that question than his right honourable friend the Home Secretary managed in the Commons earlier today.

Finally, in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph today from, to use the words of that newspaper, the country’s most senior security experts—who include two Members of this House—there is a reference to the need better to secure this country’s borders followed by a call for the Government to review security at our borders. Will the Government now agree to undertake the review called for in the letter?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as I have already alluded to, border security has been enhanced and Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers. As for lorries, we perform rigorous border checks on scheduled arrivals. The noble Lord mentioned specifically a letter that has been written today and the steps that the Government have taken. I am sure that if he reflects on the changes that have been made—apart from the creation of, as I said, a more flexible Border Force, which has allowed us to address the challenges and needs across the country as a whole—we have seen various programmes which have delivered incremental improvements to e-Borders vision, such as the Schengen information system, the warnings index on migration and improved exit checks. We continue to work very closely with our European partners across the board to ensure that we protect not only our borders but borders across the European Union from threats based around security and terrorism.