Foreign Workers: Engineers

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[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.

Cycling

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on securing this debate.

The number of pedal cycle deaths a year currently stands at 113 and has remained between 104 and 118 since 2008. The most recent annual figure for the number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured stands at 3,514, which was an 8% rise on the previous year. Those figures on fatalities and serious injuries also need to be looked at in the context that the most recent annual figures show that, while 36% of cyclists cycled mainly on the roads, 28% cycled mainly on pavements, cycle paths or lanes; 22% mainly off the roads, such as in parks; and 13% on a variety of surfaces. Thus a considerable percentage of cyclists are cycling mainly in an environment that one would not normally associate with posing a considerable potential risk of either fatalities or serious injuries to cyclists.

The Government have said that they will reduce the number of cyclist fatalities each year—by how many? What is the target reduction in the number of such fatalities against which the Government, and we, can judge the success or otherwise of their policies on safer cycling? How much do the Government intend to invest each year specifically on cycling safety improvements as opposed to general road safety improvements benefiting all road users?

The Government have said that they are committed to creating,

“an environment which encourages cycling and where cycling, along with walking, is the norm for short journeys or as part of a longer journey”.

The Government intend to bring forward a cycling and walking investment strategy in England, with publication scheduled for the summer, following public consultation. Can the Minister say to what extent this investment strategy will address improving safety for cyclists and thus promoting cycling as a safe means of transport?

The value of improving safety is considerable, not just in financial terms but, perhaps rather more importantly, in human terms. When I was on the police service parliamentary scheme, I spent a day with the traffic police. Part of the day was spent at the scene of a cycling fatality in central London, where an adult male cyclist had ended up under the wheels of a lorry. Identification was found on the cyclist, including a photograph of, I believe, two young children. As one of the officers said to me, it was going to be a heart-breaking moment for his family when they were told what had happened, but also a very difficult moment for the officer who had to go to the home address and break the news.

A Department for Transport paper, Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety, stated that,

“Of all interventions to increase cycle safety, the greatest benefits come from reducing motor vehicle speeds”.

The paper identified the potential benefits of segregated networks for cyclists but also noted evidence that,

“cyclists may be exposed to heightened risk where cycle networks intersect the general highway network”.

Do the Government have a view on what measures give best value for money in terms of improving cycling safety, and will the cycling investment strategy to be published in the summer address this question?

I am sure that we all welcome the increase in the number of cyclists and the number of journeys being made on a pedal cycle. But as the title of the debate implies, one of the biggest boosts to cycle usage will be to take measures to increase the public’s perception of cycling as a safe means of transport.

Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations are being made in order to update the existing domestic legislative and enforcement regime to comply with EU Regulation 165/2014 on tachographs. As noble Lords will be aware, tachographs monitor and record the amount of time that a commercial driver has spent driving. They are used in heavy goods vehicles, passenger service vehicles, and some light goods vehicles. Tachographs allow the enforcement of drivers’ hours rules, thereby creating a level playing field for vehicle operators. Tachographs also play a crucial role in keeping our roads safe by ensuring that professional drivers’ working hours are not excessive, and that the risk of accidents as a result of fatigue is reduced.

The directly applicable EU regulation makes small technical amendments in order to strengthen the standards that workshops must meet in order to install, check, inspect and repair tachographs. The EU regulation also paves the way for the introduction of new smart tachographs, which will periodically record a vehicle’s location via satellite technology. These will be more resistant to tampering and allow for easier enforcement. They will also make life easier for drivers by no longer requiring them to manually record their location.

By updating our domestic legislation in the light of this new European measure, these domestic regulations will ensure that the enforcement of EU drivers’ hours and tachograph rules can continue. If we do not make these changes, the UK enforcement agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police—risk no longer being able to enforce against tachograph offences. That would not be acceptable. It would compromise road safety and driver welfare.

To ensure the effective implementation of the EU regulation, my department, the Department for Transport, undertook a formal consultation in March 2015. There were two areas of flexibility in the legislation that we have opted to take up, following support from the industry. First, we are amending the legislation to continue to take up certain national derogations to drivers’ hours rules, thereby potentially reducing the administrative burden on industry. Secondly, we are allowing the DVSA to authorise field tests of non-type approved tachographs. There was broad support for these proposals across industry and I do not believe that this could be seen in any way as gold-plating. The consultation supported the view that the impact of the regulation on drivers and operators will be negligible. Drivers’ responsibilities will remain the same and the regulation extends certain exemptions. We remain confident that these changes are also low-cost, an assessment that the Regulatory Policy Committee has confirmed, and that they are likely to result in zero net costs to industry and the Government as a result of the changes to the domestic framework.

In conclusion, these draft regulations are important for the continued enforcement of important road safety rules, and for the future of the commercial driving sector by anticipating the introduction of a new generation of tachograph. They have support in the industry, which we should remember is a sector that underpins much of the UK economy. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and effect of the SI, which updates existing provisions in primary and secondary legislation to comply with EU Regulation 165/2014 on tachographs, which comes into effect from the beginning of next month. The EU regulation increases the requirements on member states for the audit and quality control processes for tachograph calibration centres. In light of the existing quality control processes that are already in place in the UK, the regulation would appear to require very little practical change in that regard.

We welcome the fact that operators who have made significant investment in establishing their own tachograph centres will not be barred under this regulation from testing their own vehicles. However, in that regard it appears—I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—that the Department for Transport’s recent Motoring Services Strategy, which suggested examining possibilities for the delivery of the HGV annual test, including examination of the test by individuals in the private sector, appeared to contemplate this kind of constraint, which has been avoided in these regulations. Can the Minister give an assurance that discussions regarding the delivery of the HGV annual test in the future will be full and open, with nothing ruled out at this early stage?

Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am delighted with these amendments and with the placing of the Modern Slavery Act into the other Acts that is a necessary part of making this work. I have only one point to make, and it is in no way a criticism of the Government; on the contrary, I very much support what they are doing. The one problem I have is to be sure that under Regulation 26 the judiciary understand that if there is any confiscation of assets from traffickers or slave-owners, they ought to be prepared to give priority to making reparation orders to the victims. That is my only point of concern, to ensure that the judiciary know about that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and impact of this SI, which, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, amends primary legislation in the light of the commencement of sections of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In particular, the amendments made by this SI ensure that primary legislation that contains references to the existing criminal offences is updated to reflect the new offences under the 2015 Act of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking, as well as slavery and trafficking reparation orders. I do not have any questions to ask, so I conclude by saying that we support the purpose of this SI.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. It is good to see the guardians of the Modern Slavery Act, if I may call them that, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, here today. They have followed the Act from before it was legislation in pre-legislative scrutiny all the way through and, rightly, are playing their role as guardians of the legislation to ensure that as we implement it, we do so as it should be done.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised a very good point about making the judiciary aware. We do not have a direct answer for it, but that is something that we will reflect to the Judicial College and ensure is communicated to it. Otherwise, I thank noble Lords for their support for this legislation as we continue to implement it.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. I am, however, a little confused about how much revenue the Home Office intends to generate through this mechanism. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“This Order sets out chargeable immigration functions and maximum fee amounts which provide for immigration fees to increase at a rate above inflation”.

Understandably, it could be that in order to ensure that the cost of processing these applications—for visas or whatever—is met, the fees have to be set above inflation because the cost of processing them is increasing at a rate above inflation. No one would have any concern about full cost recovery. One would expect that a person applying for a visa would pay the full cost of providing that service.

The impact assessment talks about the Home Office having to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services make a substantial contribution to the cost of running the immigration system. This seems slightly different from simply recovering the costs incurred. The impact assessment goes on to say that government intervention is necessary to ensure a balanced Home Office budget. It later states that,

“the Home Office estimates that 100% of the costs of front-line Immigration, Border and Citizenship operations will be recovered through fees”.

It goes on to say that it is right that,

“those who use and benefit directly from the UK migration system make an appropriate contribution to meeting its costs”.

Later it refers to the comprehensive spending review, which requires further reductions in the Home Office budget over the next four years. This suggests that fees are being increased simply to cover a hole in the Home Office budget created by the comprehensive spending review. Indeed, the impact assessment says that some fees are set above the cost of delivery. It goes on to say that significant efficiency savings are being made in the immigration system within the Home Office, but that:

“It is appropriate that any remaining shortfall”—

presumably the shortfall in the funding provided by the comprehensive spending review—

“should be met by those who use and benefit from the service”.

The Minister has just said that the immigration service works to the benefit of the UK. It is therefore not simply a case of the immigration system working for the benefit of those people who seek leave to visit the UK or to remain; it benefits all of us. Are those people who apply—that is, only those on whom the Home Office can impose a fee—going to be landed with the shortfall between the efficiency savings and what is provided by the comprehensive spending review for the immigration services? It does not seem reasonable that we should penalise those seeking visas and other services simply because the comprehensive spending review penalised the Immigration Service in that settlement.

Can the Minister reassure the Committee that these fee increases will not be used to target certain categories of applicant? There could be a potential for discrimination if that were the case. How much of the shortfall in the Home Office funding for the Immigration Service do the Government expect to make up by increasing the fees? Are we talking about the overall Home Office funding shortfall, the shortfall in front-line immigration services or the shortfall in the services that provide visas and so on?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and intention of this SI. The order sets out the functions in connection with immigration and nationality for which the Secretary of State may charge a fee, including how fees are to be calculated and maximum fee amounts. Specific fees will be set within the agreed limits in regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The Government’s objective in doing this is to achieve a self-financing border, immigration and citizenship system. This SI replaces the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2015 and is intended to sustain increases to fees set out in subsequent regulations under the negative procedure over the next four years.

In similar vein to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is it the intention that the fees set will be related to an applicant’s ability to pay? That does not appear to be a factor to be taken into consideration. If that is not the case, how will the requirement under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 be met? Under that section, the Secretary of State is required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK in carrying out any function in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality. Such an issue may surely arise if an adult applies for settlement but does not apply for a child or children at the same time because they cannot afford the fee. Presumably Section 55 makes it affordable for children and their families who meet the criteria to make immigration applications for a secure status.

The order sets out the maximum fee for a review of a decision in connection with immigration or nationality, which I think is £400. The Government argued during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014 that administrative review would be cheaper than bringing an appeal. However, the proposed maximum suggests that that might not necessarily be the case. Do the Government intend to provide an independent appeals procedure?

The fees provided for in the SI are uneven and, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, suggest that they are being used as a means to encourage or deter would-be applicants from particular groups or categories from making applications. Is that in fact the Government’s approach so far as setting the fees is concerned? It would appear to be the case.

Table 6 of the order makes provision for fees for expedited processing. This almost brings us back to the discussion we had yesterday about tier 1. It is already the case that premium service centres are offered by the Home Office and generate considerable revenue for it. However, some have argued that a twin-track system is developing in which insufficient attention is paid to ensuring that ordinary applications are processed in a timely manner. Those who are rich or desperate or both can pay for the premium service. There is a concern that more premium services, which are forecast and provided for under this SI, would mean a second-class service for everyone else. That concern has been expressed and raised in a number of quarters. Is that a fair comment or concern? It would seem to have some validity. If the response is going to be, “No, it is not a fair comment or concern”, why would the Government say that that was not the case?

The Minister mentioned in his explanation that the intention was that there would be no further increases in the maximum amounts in this SI within the next four years—or at least, as I understood it, they were to be there for the following four years. Can the Government give a guarantee that this will happen and that those maximum figures to which reference was made will not be increased again over the four-year period, or during the four-year period to which the Minister referred? We have concerns about the level of some of these fees because some of the incremental increases are indeed quite considerable. Obviously, the aim of some of the questions I have raised is to seek the Government’s response to those points.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions, which I will seek to address. Before I do so, it may be helpful to reiterate the broad principles which we are dealing with here. First, we are trying to create a self-financing model—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that he supported that—which was contained in the comprehensive spending review. The mechanism that we are talking about in the order comes from the Immigration Act 2014 and gives a degree of certainty and understanding to people on the ranges for which they are planning. The broad element is that we want this mechanism to become self-financing, but within that there is a differential, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, invited us to explore this. Of course there is a difference of approach when we are looking at students, for example, whom we want to encourage to come here to bona fide universities. We want to maintain their costs at a competitive level to encourage them to come, as with people coming on visitor visas. However, some of the other charges involve cases where there is less obvious benefit across the whole of the UK and more benefit to the individual concerned. We are saying that in those circumstances the additional fees will go towards keeping the costs down over the four-year period.

I shall deal with some of the specific questions in no particular order. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether having more premium services equates to a poorer standard of service for everyone else. He will not be surprised to hear that that is not so. In-country casework delivery to customers has improved over the last year with service standards being met consistently across all routes. These are optional services that improve customer choice. On customer choice, we know that some of our customers want a faster and more personal service, so we are expanding and improving our premium services—for example, customers who need a faster decision or need to have their passport returned before a decision has been made on an application because they need to travel in the near future; customers who prefer face-to-face services; and customers who want access to premium services without travelling to UK Visas and Immigration premises. These are all examples of premium services that attract a premium fee.

The question was asked, are the fees being used to deter applications? No; again, we cannot use fees to deter applications. We are introducing a policy and operational measures to reduce immigration abuse and inward migration. We continue to welcome the brightest and the best to the UK. There is no evidence of a relationship between changes in fees and the volume of applications for various visa products.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked how much revenue we intend to generate throughout the lifetime of the order. We expect around £600 million of border, immigration and citizenship system costs, excluding asylum support and customs, to be funded by the Exchequer at the present time. We have also made significant savings, which the noble Lord referred to. Compared to 2010, the Home Office will have delivered savings of around £3 billion in 2015-16. This includes savings and efficiencies in operating the immigration system. Of course that has to be placed in the context, which I am sure the noble Lord welcomes, that we protected the police budgets during that time. There was a great deal of speculation about that but we did it, and I think it is broadly welcomed by everyone. However, it means that the essential progress towards maintaining a tight control on costs and administration needs to be kept up.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether fees are being increased to plug a hole in the Home Office budget. Through making savings and improving efficiencies, we expect to reduce the Exchequer funding requirement by over half by 2019-20—that is, from £600 million down to £300 million. We expect to increase income from fees by circa £100 million in 2016-17. That will mean that the borders, immigration and citizenship income will be circa £1.8 billion in 2016. We estimate that we will need an additional circa £250 million of income from fees by 2019-20 to meet our self-funding objective.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether this would be based on an applicant’s ability to pay. There are costs to the immigration system in processing and assessing such claims and the ability to assert certain rights. Therefore it is right that we have a system that can cover these costs. We will never require—I underline this point—a fee that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and indeed there are many fee exemptions. Specific exemptions from application fees are provided to several groups with limited means for applications made within the UK—for example, asylum applications, children who receive local authority support, stateless people and victims of domestic violence. The Home Office will not require a fee where this would be incompatible with an applicant’s convention rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the proposed maximum: does the maximum amount of £400 within the order suggest that the Government have abandoned their intentions for the cost of administrative review to be cheaper? Individual fees are grouped into broad categories in the order so that the maximum amount must allow for the highest fee in that category. The maximum amounts have increased to provide scope to increase immigration and nationality fees to achieve the objective of the borders and immigration system being fully funded. This should not be taken as intent to increase the administrative review fee to the maximum within the border category. I think that that is not exactly spot on regarding what the noble Lord asked; he made a more general point, which was to ask whether, in presenting these orders over four years, when we have put a ceiling in place we do not expect to come back and ask for that ceiling to be raised. That is entirely right, and that degree of certainty on this can be given, which will allow people to plan accordingly.

[Lord Rosser]

I think the Minister said that it would not be correct to say that one purpose of the fees—I am sure it is not the only one—might be to deter numbers of applications, but am I not right in saying that the impact assessment talks on page 13 about an expected reduction of around 10,000 migrants per year? Now, I may be taking that out of context and I accept that that may be the case, but it seems to me that the last paragraph on that page envisages that there might be a reduction in the number of migrants as a result of the content and purpose of the SI.

[Lord Bates]

That is well spotted by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser; that is there, although of course the impact assessment relates to broader policy on migration. The noble Lord will be aware that the Government remain committed to trying to put downward pressure on migration levels to the UK, and it was as a reflection of that broader number, which is an assumption used in the Red Book and in the CSR, that we are making that conclusion. We are not drawing a direct link between these fee levels and that level of reduction; that is the broader policy that the Government are pursuing.

Walking and Cycling

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As a resident of Wimbledon, I see many examples of shared facilities, and they are a good thing. I assure the House that I am very familiar with the shared use of tracks for bicycles, walking and, indeed, horses. However, my noble friend makes an important point and I will take it back for consideration.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government have said that they will reduce the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities each year. What is the Government’s minimum target figure for the reduction of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities each year, and how much are they planning to spend each year on cycling safety as opposed to general road safety?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Any responsible government will have the aim of ultimately reducing the deaths of cyclists to zero. Any cyclist’s death is one too many. The number of deaths currently stands at 113; the number of serious injuries, however, is far higher. The noble Lord makes an important point about the education of cyclists, and therefore—as I have already said—the Government support schemes such as Bikeability very strongly.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, we could probably spend four hours going backwards and forwards on this obviously important subject, but it might be useful, given that we have a number of things to get through, to hear the views of the Front Benches.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I do not intend to speak at any great length. We support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Indeed, it is quite clear that not all Government MPs are opposed to taking unaccompanied children already in Europe, not least some of those who have been to the entry points in Greece and other parts of Europe and seen the situation for themselves. We also welcome the financial support the Government are providing to those in camps in Syria and neighbouring countries.

I think we are all agreed—everyone who has spoken is—that we should be taking some unaccompanied children; there might be an issue as to where we take them from. It is not clear, as has already been said, what the Government’s intentions are in this respect, certainly in relation to numbers. The Government, obviously, up to now are sticking to their line that they would be from within Syria and neighbouring countries, but I think I am right in saying that we have not been told how many. I suppose one answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Green, about the extent to which our taking 3,000 unaccompanied children who are already in Europe might act as an incentive for parents to send their children that way might be that it rather depends how many children the Government intend to take from Syria and neighbouring countries. Clearly if they intend to take quite considerable numbers, that might still be seen as the most favourable way of seeking admission, provided the criteria were met, into the United Kingdom. That, no doubt, is something that the Minister will comment on when he replies, perhaps giving an indication of how many unaccompanied children the Government expect to take from Syria and neighbouring countries. I ask again how the Government actually reached their initial figure of taking 20,000 people over five years. I am still not clear how they reached that. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment on that as well as on the number of unaccompanied children the Government expect to be taking under the arrangements they have announced.

The reality is, as has already been said, that we have apparently considerable numbers of unaccompanied children already in Europe. I am certainly not confining my comments to Calais and Dunkirk. Indeed, the amendment refers to children,

“who are in European countries”.

It is not related simply to what may be happening in Calais and Dunkirk. My understanding, unless I have got the figure wrong, is that Europol recently said that more than 10,000 unaccompanied children registered after arriving in Europe over the past 18 months to two years have disappeared. It said that youngsters arriving in Europe alone are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. That, no doubt, is something on which the Minister will comment. Why are the Government refusing to take some unaccompanied children from within Europe—a specific figure is mentioned in the amendment? Where children have been identified as being unaccompanied, on their own and having come from a country ravaged by civil war, where hundreds of thousands have died and many have been brutally murdered, is it really still the Government’s policy to wash our hands of them as far as relocation to the United Kingdom is concerned because they landed cold, wet, scared and on their own on, for example, a Greek island rather than being in or near Syria? Up to now, that appears basically to be the Government’s stance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

We have an amendment in this group that calls for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of border security. Part of that review would be to consider the adequacy of resources currently available at all points of entry to the United Kingdom; it also provides for the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act. I do not want to make many points, since concerns about border security have been expressed already, but I do not think that the Government know how many people are coming in and out of our country and who they are. They do not, for example, have any idea what the net migration figure will be each year. It seems to come as much a surprise to the Government as to anyone else.

We really have got to the stage when we have to get a grip on our borders. After all, it was only recently—it may have been last month—that a terror suspect on bail departed at a major sea port. We have also had an instance of a terror suspect from the continent coming in through the same route. It would appear that some of those whom we regard as extremists perceive the ferry borders to be a weak link—and it looks as though they have some reason and justification for feeling that way, unfortunately. The Home Secretary really must conduct an urgent review of border security at ferry and other terminals and provide urgent reassurance that passports are properly checked on exit and arrival in the UK.

I think that it is the case that more than two years ago the Government were warned by the National Audit Office that there were worrying gaps in the new Border Force. A recent report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration suggests that those gaps are still there and that potential terrorists can also enter our country unchecked—for example, as has already been mentioned, via private planes and boats—as well as there being some evidence that they can come in and out of the country through major ports. Even if the Government do not feel inclined to accept my amendment—naturally, I hope that they will—I hope that we will hear in the Minister’s response that some steps are being taken to tighten up on our borders so that we know who is coming and going, not only the numbers but who they are. I hope that it will be an end to reports, whether from the National Audit Office or from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, that there are gaps, and quite serious ones, that need plugging.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I support Amendment 240. The sheer scale of immigration is a major public concern. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we need to get a grip, and part of that is a matter of reorganisation, which I think is at hand. Another part is to have a legal framework, and we are doing that today. But none of that is any use at all unless it is enforced. I am increasingly of the view that the lack of resources is becoming a serious constraint; it really does need to be looked at, and the Government should explain how they think they can achieve their objectives on the resources that they have so allocated.

Lastly, I offer qualified support to Amendment 241A. Illegal immigration is a very important subject that is often ducked. We have looked at this, and it is very difficult to get beyond merely ballpark estimates, but it is worth having a shot at and I think that the Government should do it—not annually, because there is just not enough information for that, but it should be done and it would be worth doing.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I shall be brief if I can, because—if I can make a pitch wearing my Whip’s hat—we have six more groups of amendments to debate.

It may help if I speak first to government Amendment 239C, which I hope will be uncontroversial. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his support on this amendment. This makes a minor change to extend the maritime powers in the Bill to Northern Ireland port police by altering the definition of “Northern Ireland constable” in new Section 28Q of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 to the Bill.

The two harbour police forces in Northern Ireland, the Belfast Harbour Police and Larne Harbour Police, were not initially included in the Bill as the categories of officers listed are modelled on the maritime powers in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, we have listened to points made by Northern Irish Members in another place and agree that a consistent approach should be taken across the UK with the enforcement of immigration control. Therefore, this amendment aligns the position of port police forces in Northern Ireland with those port police forces elsewhere in the UK which are already included in the Bill. It will be a matter for individual port police forces to consider whether they wish to use the powers or rely on the relevant territorial force—for example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Amendment 239BA would extend our penalties for misdirected passengers to general aviation sites, private landing strips and helipads. It is the Government’s intention to operate the misdirected flights penalties only at sites where there is a designated control zone to which arriving passengers must be directed for border checks by the Border Force. I shall come on to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made in a moment. Given the large number of general aviation sites, landing strips and helipads in the UK that do not have a permanent Border Force presence, this amendment is unnecessary and unworkable. It would place a disproportionate burden on those sites. Border Force officers attend such sites only when they need to check specific arrivals.

On what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was saying about the potential loophole, I should quickly mention how border authorities handle general aviation flights. The Border Force and police take an intelligence-led approach to general aviation, which strikes a balance between securing our borders and best managing resources. Flights are risk-assessed in advance and, when appropriate, border authorities will physically examine crew, passengers and goods. There are in excess of 3,000 private air fields nationwide, and it would be unfeasible for the Border Force and police routinely to meet all arriving flights. It was noted by the independent inspection report published in January that the Border Force has made a number of significant recent interventions in the general aviation environment. I confirm that all those travelling via general aviation are subject to the same immigration and visa requirements as those using scheduled services. The noble Lord asks whether we are doing something about it. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 includes enabling provisions for a stronger legislative framework for advanced notification for general aviation. Regulations will bring greater clarity to what is needed from the sector but also provide for appropriate sanctions to enforce compliance by the small minority that do not provide advanced notification under the current arrangements.

Amendment 240 seeks to include provision for a statutory review of border security in the United Kingdom. The Border Force operates a control regime which is predicated on checking 100% of scheduled arrivals. Our collection of advanced passenger information from carriers enables us to identify known subjects of interest to law enforcement agencies before they travel, allowing us to intervene and direct airlines and ferry companies not to carry certain passengers so that they never even set foot in the UK. The Border Force adopts an intelligence-led approach in combination with its partners to identify and intercept contraband goods which have the potential to cause harm to the public. Our visa regime provides another vital way by which we are able to manage the threats from crime, terrorism, illegal migration, and espionage.

The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration regularly reviews Home Office immigration functions, including our management of border security. Most significantly, following the independent chief inspector’s critical review of the then UK Border Agency, Border Force was established as a separate law enforcement body. The Home Office also works with a range of other partners, including port operators, carriers and road hauliers. This allows us to review processes and security interventions to make border security work efficiently, and to work together to intercept threats while keeping the flow of law-abiding passengers and freight moving as smoothly as possible. I assure the Committee that the Government keep the UK’s border security arrangements under constant review and these arrangements are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration—as I have said—and by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The reports and publications of both of these are laid before Parliament. On this basis, we do not consider there is any need to introduce a further statutory review process.

[Lord Rosser]

Are the Government satisfied with our border security arrangements at the moment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 242C, 242G and 242J. Before I come to them, I shall say that I support the amendment on British Sign Language. My noble friend Lady Humphreys is in her place. She heard the confirmation about the Welsh language and welcomes it. I say that in the context of wishing this clause were not here at all. I appreciate that there was a line in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the previous election and that is why I have not sought to take these clauses out altogether.

The impact assessment on these clauses confirmed my anxiety about their potential for encouraging discrimination and harassment. It says:

“The policy objective is to ensure a sufficient standard of fluent English is maintained and can be enforced … This is intended to improve the quality, efficiency and safety of public service provision and support taxpayers confidence they are receiving value for money”.

So far, so good.

“This proposal is expected to support current priorities for the management of immigration into the UK”.

I have littered questions marks, the word “prejudice”, an exclamation mark and the word “tangentially” around that statement.

We would prefer to take these clauses out altogether, but the first of our amendments looks at the provision for expanding the requirements into the private sector. It is a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister is aware of the questions that I intend to ask. If this is of such concern, why, in a service context where so many public services are provided on behalf of the Government by the private sector, does the Bill not immediately extend to services which are contracted out? Will there be changes to the requirements as they affect contractors? Has consultation taken place with the private sector? Will there be a single code of practice? Since so much is outsourced, it seems odd if work which is outsourced is not covered, but I wonder whether the private sector will be happy with this as a requirement. I am interested in the consultation.

Amendment 242G is on the code of practice, which under Clause 50 may make different provision for different purposes. I have suggested,

“and for different roles or descriptions of roles”.

It may well be that the Minister will confirm that that is within Clause 50(6) because there are clearly different things that people in the public sector do in different roles or may need to do. The impact assessment states that the code,

“will be flexible enough to account for the differing requirements and existing arrangements of different public sector bodies”,

but it would be good to have confirmation that the legislation allows for that.

Amendment 242J would require a review within five years. I ask the Committee to understand this amendment in the context of my initial remarks. Noble Lords will understand from the points that I have listed in the amendment the matters with which I am concerned:

“the extent and types of authority subject to the requirement; … the standard required; … procedures for complaints”—

it has been pointed out to me that it is sad that requirements are being put in place and that it is felt necessary to have a complaints procedure designed from the beginning—

“direct and indirect discrimination which has or may have arisen; and … the resources required to meet this requirement”.

The Race Equality Foundation says,

“the draft code is poorly drafted, poorly structured and … there is nothing to prevent users of public services making complaints on the basis of accent and appearance. These provisions may encourage, and semi-legitimise, racially-motivated harassment under the guise of challenging someone’s ability to speak ‘fluent’ English. There is already evidence on the greater likelihood for black and minority ethnic people to be subject to the disciplinary process in public services”.

It is obviously concerned about these requirements expanding that likelihood.

The Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals was very moderate in its language:

“No amount of guidance in the draft Code of Practice can save what is an irredeemably unworkable scheme”.

It talks about:

“The opportunities for directly and indirectly discriminatory, and harassment, claims”,

and reminds us that harassment is a form of discrimination under EU equality law. It asks about the constitutional basis. I think I would ask about the evidence base.

The institute also points out that:

“The use of the terms ‘high standard of English’ … and ‘fluency’ indicate a ‘mother tongue’ proficiency, which is not permissible in EU law”.

Another of its comments says,

“these measures will leave public bodies open to extensive litigation, primarily on grounds of race and ethnic origins, but also on grounds of disability, in relation to … discrimination and harassment claims”.

I said—I think at Second Reading—that I regard the ability to communicate as important, indeed essential, in the public sector, as in all other parts of life, but I cannot be the only person in this Committee who has encountered someone whose English is perfect but who cannot make themselves understood.

[Lord Rosser]

I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment. As far as I understand it, the Government will accept British Sign Language—or at least they are saying it is provided for in the code—but they do not wish to put that in the Bill. I will wait with interest to see why that is unnecessary or undesirable since I am not quite sure at the moment what the answer is.

I also want to pursue the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am sure the Minister will put me right if I have misread this, but the language requirements refer to public sector workers. I take it that means that any private sector organisation with customer-facing roles will not be covered by the Bill. I ask the same question as the noble Baroness. Why is this being geared to the public sector alone? I do not know that I have particular enthusiasm for seeing it apply across the private sector since I have some of the reservations, subject to what the Minister may say, about the extent to which this could lead to some discrimination. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will explain how it is going to work. As I understand it, the definition of speaking fluent English is laid out in the Bill:

“For the purposes of this Part a person speaks fluent English if the person has a command of spoken English which is sufficient to enable the effective performance of the person’s role”.

Who will judge that and decide whether their English is sufficient? Is it open to somebody to complain that that criterion has not been met? If so, what then happens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Clearly some important issues are raised here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted that there was some reference to this issue in the Conservative Party manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will correct me if I am wrong but it also featured in the Labour Party manifesto, so I would understand him to have a reasonable degree of insight into what is proposed here.

[Lord Rosser]

I am asking how the Government intend to apply this. It is their legislation.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I fully understand the nature of the noble Lord’s inquiry; I was just pointing out that the rationale behind this legislation was recognised not only in the Conservative Party manifesto but in the Labour Party manifesto.

I begin by looking at Amendment 242, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I am glad to have the opportunity to reassure her and other noble Lords that the duty being imposed by this provision does not apply to individuals who communicate using British Sign Language. I believe it may help if I explain that it will not be the responsibility of individual members of staff to meet this duty; it will be the responsibility of public authorities, as the employers. I remind noble Lords that, as employers, public authorities have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for their staff. If reasonable, a British Sign Language interpreter would be provided. In addition, any worker or job applicant who communicates using British Sign Language must be considered for recruitment on a par with any other applicant.

To comply with the duty in Part 7, public authorities must ensure that the British Sign Language interpreters whom they employ, rather than the recipients of such a workplace adjustment, speak fluent English. Given that fluent spoken English is the reason the interpreter has been engaged, there should be no difficulty at all in public authorities meeting that duty. In those circumstances, I seek to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the position in regard to British Sign Language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, in relation to skills, I draw the Committee’s attention to the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on training in the private sector. Her report found that there had been a substantial fall in what she described as “serious” training—that is off-site training—since 2008. It is clearly necessary that action should be taken and encouragement should be provided by the Government to tackle that. That said, I do not think I have any comment on this. I listened with interest to the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Airports: Expansion

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the subject of specific surveys, I will write to the noble Baroness about those two areas. However, as she is no doubt aware, Manchester, for example, will also benefit from £1 billion of investment over the next 10 years—and there are other regional airports. Indeed, I was looking forward to a question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton—but I may pre-empt that if I add that Luton, too, has benefited. Further to the noble Lord’s previous question, I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently visited Luton and saw the excellent facilities there.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government clarify the questions that they are now asking about extra runway capacity, and the options that they do not believe were fully addressed or answered in the Airports Commission report? Which bodies and organisations are they now asking to provide views and information on the questions that they are still asking?

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

227: Clause 34, page 39, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Before a decision is taken to certify a human rights claim, the Secretary of State must obtain a multi-agency best interests assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by the decision to certify.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 34 and this amendment deal with rights of appeal relating to persons who claim to have a right to remain in the United Kingdom on asylum or human rights grounds, but whose claim has been refused. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State will have the power to certify the claim for someone appealing on human rights grounds against an immigration decision so that they can only appeal from outside of the United Kingdom unless to do so would be in breach of their human rights.

This extends to all individuals the provisions that are already enforced for the deportation cases of former foreign national offenders, and will affect all those bringing human rights appeals under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the right to respect for private and family life. In order to make an application under Article 8, it is necessary to gather extensive evidence demonstrating the extent to which a child, for example, has developed a personal life and connections within the United Kingdom, including evidence from the carer, teachers, therapists, medical professionals, mentors and friends. This is surely made far harder where those connections are severed by distance and time, enforced by deportation and delays in the tribunal system.

It is also vital not only to understand and obtain evidence, but to present it appropriately, which requires legal assistance, yet legal aid is not available for Article 8 appeals save on an exceptional basis. For those without the requisite leave there will also be no legal aid to challenge the certification of the case prior to removal. As a result, out-of-country appeals, for which the deadlines to lodge an appeal are often extremely tight, will not be pursued or will be pursued only inadequately, given the costs of taking forward an appeal as a privately paying individual from overseas. It may be that that is the deliberate intention of this measure. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the Secretary of State was given power to certify deportation appeals so that a foreign national offender subject to a deportation order can be removed before their appeal or during the appeal process if the Secretary of State decides that to do so would not cause serious irreversible harm—not just serious harm, but serious irreversible harm. Available data show that in the year since the provision came into force for foreign national offenders, the number of appeals against deportation brought out of country has dropped by 87% compared with the number brought in country in the year to April 2013. The rate of success on appeal is also lower than before, decreasing from 26% in the year to April 2013 to just 13%. That suggests that many individuals are unable to appeal effectively a decision following removal from the UK, and that appeals which would have been successful are not being brought.

The available data indicate that “deport first, appeal later” has had an adverse impact on the ability of foreign national offenders—whom I appreciate may not be the most popular of individuals—to challenge a deportation decision, which suggests that this handicap will affect thousands more individuals if the provisions are extended, including many who have British or settled family members in the UK, such as partners and children. We have in this group a stand part Motion relating to Clause 34.

Amendment 227 is intended to ensure that before a decision is made to certify any claim for an out-of-country appeal, the best interests of any child affected must be considered in line with the terms of our amendment. As I have already said, Clause 34 is a wide extension of the existing powers relating to a limited class of individuals, and will now cover many people who are appealing their cases. It is not clear to what extent the Government have considered the impact, particularly on children, of separation in such circumstances. The Children’s Commissioner published a report last year about the impact of different rules, including the rules about the income requirement that has to be met before a spouse can join a family. It also addressed the adverse impact on a child of not having access to one parent for months or sometimes years. The Government’s figures indicate that around 40% of appeals succeed, which is a high success rate for appeals, and if a family is involved it could result in the distress referred to in the Children’s Commissioner’s report, because they cannot have any meaningful contact with one of their parents for a prolonged period. That is a real difficulty with the intention to extend the removal of individuals before an appeal can take place. Many appeals take a long time to deal with, and this Bill seems a bit thin in addressing that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

There is one further point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He alluded to Section 55 and to the interests of the child, and suggested that perhaps, although these obligations exist, it might be better if they were reflected in the clause itself. That is a point on which I should like to reflect before Report, if he will permit me to do so. I am obliged to noble Lords.

[Lord Rosser]

First, I thank the Minister for that lengthy and comprehensive reply, which I am sure will have been appreciated by all those who have spoken and raised points in this debate. That does not necessarily mean that they have agreed with the Minister, but I am sure they have appreciated the extent to which he has sought to reply to the points that have been made. I also express my appreciation to everybody who has spoken in the debate.

In the light of the noble and learned Lord’s last comment that he would reflect further on whether something not too dissimilar to what was suggested in our amendment might appear on the face of the Bill, which I think is what he said, frankly I am tempted not to make all the points that I was going to make in response. I hope that that will not be taken as meaning that he has left me completely speechless with his reply; I am doing it in the light of what he said at the end of his contribution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 227 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

We have the clause stand part debate on Clause 37 and an amendment in this group.

On 4 August, the Government initiated a consultation on proposals for changes in the support available to refused asylum seekers. The consultation ended just over a month later on 9 September and the Immigration Bill was published six days after the consultation ended. One can only comment that that was remarkably quickly after the end of a consultation exercise on part of the provisions of the Immigration Bill.

At present, there are two forms of support for asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—they are usually referred to as Section 95 support and Section 4 support. While waiting for a decision on the application, asylum seekers are not eligible for mainstream benefits. If they would otherwise be destitute, they can apply to the Government for accommodation or financial support or both under Section 95 of the 1999 Act. Since August of last year, the financial support available has been £36.95 per week per adult or child. That is, by the way, one-eighth of the daily allowance applicable in this place, which I believe one noble Lord recently declared was “inadequate”.

Asylum seekers whose application for asylum is unsuccessful and whose appeal rights are exhausted cease to be eligible for Section 95 support, which is terminated 21 days after the claim has finally been determined. Under some circumstances, destitute refused asylum seekers can apply for Section 4 support under the 1999 Act. If granted, that is not paid in cash but a payment card is provided, credited with £35.39 per person per week to be used in specified retail outlets to buy food and essential toiletries.

Under the 1999 Act, refused asylum-seeking families with children under the age of 18 who were part of the family before the final decision was made on the asylum application can continue to receive Section 95 support until the youngest child turns 18 or the family leaves the United Kingdom.

Under the Bill, that entitlement for refused asylum-seeking families is taken away. As a result, support under Section 95 for families with children will be stopped once they have been refused and had any appeal rejected, following, in the light of the recent information we had from the Minister, what will now be a 90-day grace period, which I acknowledge is longer than the Government were originally proposing.

After the 90 days, these families may then be eligible for a new form of support under new Section 95A, which replaces Section 4 support. However, to qualify for support under new Section 95A, individuals and families who have had their asylum application refused will need to demonstrate that they are destitute and face a genuine obstacle to leaving the United Kingdom. The details of how this will work will be set out in regulations, but the Government have already stated that the criteria for provision under new Section 95A will be very narrowly drawn and more narrowly defined than under Section 4.

Will the Minister say whether the Section 95 support will be withdrawn after 90 days for families who are fully engaging with the authorities over their departure, or will it continue in these circumstances? If so, who would make that decision for it to continue? Would there be a right of appeal against a negative decision in that regard? I ask that in the context that, as I understand it, the Government’s review of their family return process showed that, in 59% of cases, it took longer than three months to complete the process of leaving. Presumably, the evidence suggests that there will be many cases where support under Section 95 will cease before the family whose asylum claim has failed has been able to make all the necessary arrangements to return home.

The Government have also said that, under the new arrangements, it will not be possible to apply for new Section 95A support outside the prescribed grace period of 90 days under Section 95 support, except where the regulations permit this for reasons outside the person’s control. New Section 95A claims will require the applicant to show that there is a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK. For pregnant women, that is defined as being within six weeks of the due date. What will happen in a claim by a pregnant woman during the 90-day grace period for new Section 95A support who, at the time of the application, is not within the qualifying six weeks of the due date? Will they qualify for Section 95 support?

This clause and its associated schedule are clearly intended to deliver the objectives so bluntly set out in the Explanatory Notes of making it hard for those without the appropriate immigration status to live in this country. In this instance, it is the Government’s stated policy intention to encourage the departure—to put it euphemistically—from the UK of refused asylum seekers.

Will the Minister, when he responds, place on record the Government’s estimate of the reduction in the number of people in this country with no lawful basis to remain that will result from this intended change in the support arrangements, and the basis on which that estimate was determined? I ask that because the Government will be aware that there is far from universal acceptance of their apparent premise that cutting off support after 90 days to asylum-seeking families whose appeal rights have been exhausted will result in their leaving the United Kingdom, because where parents think that their children’s lives will be at risk if they return home they are rather more likely to consider that becoming destitute in the UK is still the better option available to them.

In 2005, the then Labour Government ran a pilot scheme in which families whose appeal rights were exhausted had all their support removed if they failed to take reasonable steps to leave the UK. The Government’s own evaluation of the scheme in respect of Section 9 of the 2004 asylum and immigration Act, which involved 116 families, concluded first that the rate of absconding was 39% for those in the Section 9 pilot, but just 21% in the comparable control group who remained supported. Secondly, it concluded that only one family in the pilot was successfully removed, compared with nine successful removals in the control group. There was no significant increase in the number of voluntary returns of unsuccessful asylum-seeking families. Finally, the earlier evaluation concluded that Section 9 should not be used on a blanket basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Railways: South East Flexible Ticketing Scheme

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We are seeing increased co-operation across train operators and we are working closely with the industry to ensure just that. As I have already indicated, there is 73% coverage with the existing operators. In one case, for season ticket holders we already have 22% of the market covered through smart ticketing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Rail Delivery Group has recently had discussions with the Rail Minister, Claire Perry. She was going to send a formal letter to the group setting out the Government’s expectations on ticketing. In order to clear up any doubts about the current situation and the position with the South East Flexible Ticketing smartcard scheme, and indeed with other schemes, can I ask whether that letter has been sent? If so, will the Minister place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have just enjoyed a sandwich lunch with my honourable friend the Rail Minister, and I asked her that question. That letter will be sent shortly, and as soon as it is issued I will ensure that a copy is put in the Library. The noble Lord pointed to wider arrangements. Through the Smart Cities Partnership, nine additional regions are looking at smart ticketing.