Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I will just pick up a point that my noble friend made about the difference in powers between the advocate on one side and the guardian on the other. The point was raised in the memorandum sent to us by the Refugee Children’s Consortium whether or not, without “legal powers”, there will be anyone,
“to instruct solicitors on a child’s behalf and ensure that decisions are made in their best interests”.
Would the advocate have those powers to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf? I take it that a guardian certainly would have those powers, which is an important difference between the two proposals that we now have before us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been interesting. This is not the first time that the House has discussed the issue, but I am pleased that it has been raised again for noble Lords to consider. I am also pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, feels that we have travelled a long way. It certainly seems as if we have done so. I accept the feeling that lies behind the amendments and, if I urge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to withdraw her amendment, it will be on the grounds of things that I will tell her that the Government are doing, not because I think that her feeling on the issue is wrong.
The Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out all forms of modern slavery, and the work on this issue continues apace. I think my noble friend Lord McColl probably knows this already, but there are no half-measures in what we are going to propose. Last December, the Home Secretary published a draft Bill on modern slavery—the first of its kind in Europe—which will ensure the harshest penalties are available for offenders. It consolidates and simplifies existing offences, making the law easier to apply. At the heart of everything we do is the desire to support and protect the victims and to ensure that they receive the help they need to recover from their traumatic ordeal. I met with Frank Field last week, who noble Lords will know is working closely with the Home Office on this very issue, as indeed are a number of noble Lords.
We have listened to the concerns raised in this House and we agree that these children must be afforded the best support and protection from the state. Since this House took a view on this matter during the passage of the Children and Families Bill in December, the Government have announced a trial of specialist independent advocates for trafficked children. The trial will test the specialist independent advocates against the existing system, which will be supported by new, strengthened statutory guidance and regulation in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, showed how important it was that this new system should be able to work reconciled with our existing system, so that we get the best from it. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that these specialist, dedicated advocates will be experts in trafficking, and completely independent of the local authority and social services department. Their role will be to steer the child through the complexity of the multiple government agencies—not just local-authority care, immigration and criminal justice but all government departments. This is to ensure that the child’s voice is heard.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry if that was the case. I was hoping that all noble Lords here would have seen it. A copy of the letter was placed in the Library.
I can say that these roles are almost all entirely aligned. The specialist advocates that we are trialling from July will be a consistent point of contact for the child. They will accompany the child to meetings and support the local authority to assess the child’s needs, and promote the child’s safety and well-being. They will support the child in relation to children’s social care, immigration and criminal justice systems and, importantly, they will play a role in key decisions relating to the child trafficking victim.
There are, however, two important suggestions. First, our proposals go further. Child trafficking is child abuse. It is vital that we ensure that all victims, who deserve to be helped to recover from the trauma of this hateful crime, receive the support that they need. The Rochdale and Oxford cases have shown that the trafficking of children extends its vile reach much further than purely those being trafficked across borders. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that. I assure my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on this. That is why the trial of specialist independent advocates goes wider than the proposed amendment. The support in the amendment will be given only to those trafficked across borders; under our proposals, the support will be not only for those children but for those trafficked internally in the UK as well. Secondly, our advocates will support children, as I have said. Under the amendments before us, these guardians will support adults up to the age of 21 and would not therefore be focused on the needs of the child as our advocates will be.
I assure noble Lords that progress on setting up the trial has been swift. We will be in a position later this week—it is a pity it is not today; I am having to argue with the knowledge that the situation will be made clearer during the course of this week—to announce which organisation, which I am sure will be well known to noble Lords, will be delivering the child trafficking advocacy service, which will commence on 1 July 2014 across 23 different local authorities.
There are differing views on and evidence about the best way to support these incredibly vulnerable children, and we have heard some of those discussed this afternoon. To ensure that we take the right action to deliver the best outcomes for these children, we consider it essential that we are given the opportunity to assess whether the introduction of the specialist child trafficking advocates will make the difference we hope and believe it will, but we need evidence in order to discuss how to roll the project out. That is why we are commissioning an independent evaluation of the trial. An evaluator will be in place by June and will report six months after the trial commences, and again when the trial concludes.
As my noble friend Lord Attlee made clear on 19 March, this will enable us to consider the impact of the specialist independent child trafficking advocates, as well as how the scheme worked, during the passage of the modern slavery Bill, which should be before one or other of our two Houses of Parliament. The modern slavery Bill is a much better place to make these changes. I think most noble Lords understand that that is a Bill that is specifically about this issue. The trafficking of children is not just a migration issue. By making amendments to this Bill, we risk conflating the whole business of immigration with the issue of trafficking and creating a gap for children who are trafficked within the UK.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Will the noble Lord make clear why the advocates that he is proposing do not have a legal status?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is a question that the modern slavery Bill will indeed be able to consider. The whole point of having the trial is that we need to know the degree to which a legal status for the advocates is essential for their success. I say to my noble friend: let us give the trial a chance. This area has not been dealt with by successive Governments over time, and it is a problem that has grown worse over time. Surely the sensible way to do it is by having a trial; we will know before we legislate in the modern slavery Bill. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we will be considering this matter within the context of that Bill. I am sure he will understand that.
Lord Cormack
Can my noble friend give the House a guarantee that there will be something on that on the face of the anti-slavery Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The Bill that is presented to Parliament is hardly likely to contain details of this measure because, as I understand it, the intention is to introduce sections on the trafficking advocates during the passage of the Bill, when we will have the information available.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, pilots are often very good places to start. But the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others first raised this in 2011. We have what I believe to be a very good Bill, the modern slavery Bill, going through pre-legislative scrutiny at the moment, but I do not understand why this is not an integral part of that Bill. The Government have known for a long time that that Bill was coming forward. The pilots could have taken place an awfully long time ago. I am intrigued as to why all the bits of the puzzle were not put together, as would be logical.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is perhaps right to chide me, but we are seeking to get this matter right. It is in the interests of the children to make sure that the public authorities that have to deal with this problem have a proper ground on which to do so. This is not an easy area. We are dealing with children whose situation is very different from that which we ourselves experienced as children or, indeed, our own children have experienced. These are very different terms and to get that right is important.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I happen to agree with him that the most important thing is to get this right. Having heard the arguments so far, I do not think any of these options have been properly thought through to their conclusion to ensure that we get this right. Looking at what is happening on the ground at the moment, we could actually have another difficult, disastrous situation. Therefore, I ask the Minister: did I mishear, or did he say that the advocates would be set up under some sort of statutory regulation? I think the thing that concerns the House is the authority by which the advocates would be able to operate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
They would advocate in exactly the same way as they do currently in Scotland. There is no statutory scheme in Scotland but they are respected by the authorities there. What I am saying to the noble Baroness and, indeed, the House, is that setting them up under a statutory scheme is one of the matters that we will find out as a result of having these trials in place. This, to my mind, makes sense. Given what the noble Baroness is advocating, I sense that she is on my side because she can see the complexity of the issue.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is on my side. She is perhaps right to chide me for not acting more promptly, but none the less there are limitations to these amendments, which do not provide, for example, for the involvement of UK-trafficked children. We want the trial to deal with children whose trafficking origin may be from crossing borders but may well be within the UK—they are equally vulnerable and can equally benefit from having an advocate operating on their behalf.
Let me perhaps deal with some questions, as I have talked a lot about how I feel and noble Lords will know that I feel quite strongly about this particular issue. I was asked by my noble friend Lord McColl whether the independent advocate would operate in the same way as the guardian. Our advocates will be allocated to children in the trial as soon as they can be identified, with no delay. Any provided for the purpose of this trial will provide 24-hour access to their service to ensure this. As I have said, the role of the advocate is almost entirely identical to the role that the noble Lord outlined. Under existing arrangements, the victim must be informed of their right to an independent advocate. The advocate will be available to all potential child trafficking victims participating in the trial whether or not they are in receipt of support from the local authority—that is, in the care system. Therefore, one does not have to be in the care system to be entitled to receive this support. Children will be allocated to the advocate automatically as soon as they are identified as potential victims.
Lord Higgins (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Coming to this rather from scratch, can I ask him to spell out precisely what the difference is between the amendment and what the Government are proposing?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
First of all, the amendment is to an Immigration Bill and is therefore confined to immigration, and it only deals with such children who have been trafficked—I am sorry, I have received advice on this—so it is limited in that respect. We believe that it is wrong to legislate by the terms of this amendment when a trial is in place that seeks to make sure that the legislative framework adopted for this development is sound and in place on a proper footing. We have a modern slavery Bill which, as I hope my noble friend will understand, is much more aligned to addressing this issue than the particular type of trafficking which depends upon immigration for its origin.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
I am very sorry to be adding to the questions, but can the Minister explain how the trial is going to help the Government to decide whether the scheme should be statutory? What is the problem about deciding that question now and telling the House that it will be made statutory in the other Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I gave an answer to that, did I not? It may not be necessary. It is not in Scotland, where it works well enough, so why should the Bill make it statutory in England if it does not need to be? These are the sorts of considerations that Parliament is there to decide. Now, if the noble Lord feels that we should decide it today and include a statutory provision within the Bill, so be it. I am just asking: why do that when you cannot be certain of the terms of the statutory obligations that you want to have in place? I am explaining to noble Lords that the whole purpose of the trial is to examine those. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about that. If the evaluation of the trial gives the evidence that we are looking for, we will indeed bring forward an amendment to the modern slavery Bill to deal with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, quite rightly asked who is going to pay for this. For the purposes of the trial, the Home Office is funding the provision of advocates and, were this to be rolled out nationally, the Government would need to consider where the budget would be drawn from. That is why we need the opportunity to evaluate the role. If we want this to be worth while, where is the money, how are we going to pay for it and what elements do we have to consider as a priority? As part of this Government’s work to eradicate modern-day slavery, the Home Office has funded this trial of independent specialist advocates. The amendments before us do not make clear on whom the duty to appoint and therefore fund the child trafficking obligations will fall. Is it children’s social care or the Secretary of State? That is not clear within these amendments.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked about the statutory guidance. She is quite right that statutory guidance will be important. She asked whether the independent child trafficking advocate is the same as the independent advocate referred to in the draft DfE statutory guidance. No, the advocates that we are trialling will be specialist, dedicated advocates working only with victims of child trafficking. They will have a broader role to support them in relation to children’s social care, immigration and the criminal courts. They will be a constant point of contact, so it is a broader remit than would be provided for under this Immigration Bill.
It is critical to ensure that we have the best arrangements in place to protect and support these vulnerable children. Before we make any changes to our existing safeguarding arrangements, for there are safeguarding arrangements already in place, Parliament must be confident of the outcome of these changes. That is why I am at this point asking my noble friends to be patient and await the robust, independent evaluation of this important trial. It will be independent.
I say to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that I will write later this week to noble Lords to explain the updates which are consistent with this week’s announcement. I will include the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in my correspondence—I promise her that. I will then keep noble Lords posted throughout the passage of the modern slavery Bill, and indeed the process of the trial, so that when that Bill comes before Parliament they are in a position to consider the amendments that this Government will make. I urge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to withdraw her amendment on the grounds that I have assured her in this way.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I raise an entirely separate administrative problem? The Minister referred to a letter which was clearly highly relevant to many Peers, but which they had not seen. It had been placed in the Library. The Minister himself very kindly wrote to me about a month ago on an entirely different subject, and I went to the Library to see where the copy lay. It is on the web. Nobody had been told that the Minister had written to me; it might have been up to me to do so. Perhaps I may suggest that somebody—clearly, not the Minister—ought to look into this problem, because when a letter is placed in the Library the writer probably assumes that many of us have seen it. There clearly needs to be some sort of action to draw it to the attention of relevant Peers.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I will write to them personally about developments this week. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s notion. We met, and I did indeed say that the letter was in the Library, and I am sorry if it was only on the web. I will try to ascertain how that is. I think that noble Lords will agree that on this Bill I have been pretty assiduous in trying to keep noble Lords abreast of what is going on, and I will continue to do so on this particular topic.
Lord Cormack
Before my noble friend sits down, he said that we will have details in a few days. Does this not make a powerful argument for his coming back on Third Reading?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, we will not have information on the trials within a few days. We will have information about how the trials are being set up and the evaluation of the trials. That is what we will have available within the next few days. It is important that we wait until then before we make a decision on this matter, but I assure noble Lords that they will be informed when an announcement is made. It cannot be made at the moment because of the ways in which the Government actually organise these affairs, but it will be made very shortly. It will be this week, and within the next few days.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I do not doubt the good intentions of the Government. I should like to have seen that letter before I prepared what I was going to say to your Lordships’ House. I did not know that the letter existed, so I did not go to the Library to ask about it. I suspect that there are others in the same situation. That really does put us in grave difficulties when we are putting forward amendments.
However, perhaps much more importantly, I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, and three different government Ministers came to speak to us, together with endless government officials at different times, but nobody told us about this. The first I knew of it was the press release. The Joint Committee was sitting until the end of last week and yet, oddly enough, we were not even told about it last week. We knew through the press release. You might have thought that it was relevant for the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill to be told about it, but we were not told. I read the press release that dealt with care proceedings in immigration. It did not deal with any of the other matters that the Minister told us about. I do not doubt his good intentions, but it is interesting that we have it on Monday this week, rather than last week.
If I may respectfully say so, it looks as though the Government are scrabbling a bit to meet this amendment. If this really matters to the Government, it is odd that there is nothing in the modern slavery Bill, not even enabling powers, to allow for the production of statutory guidance, if that was the appropriate thing. The statement that there will be a statutory guardian does not have to be in the Bill, but the words that the Secretary of State could provide for such a guardian could be included. That did not come to us last week. I ask noble Lords to reflect on what is going on here when today is the first day I have heard about it, the Select Committee has never heard about it and even the press release had only part of what we are told today, although it was quite a long press release.
What is the real difference between what the Government are offering and what the amendment is saying? The difference is the statutory power. We were told again and again in our Select Committee about the absence of a statutory power for an advocate or a guardian. The word is unimportant and the title does not matter; it is the job that matters. The job is being offered by the Minister, but the Select Committee was told that if you have no statutory power, there is no obligation on any agency—social services, the police, the CPS for the Vietnamese boys who are being prosecuted or the NHS—to deliver to that advocate the information the advocate needs. The advocate will not have any powers in going to advise in immigration procedures or to talk to the UK Human Trafficking Centre, and so on and so forth.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not wish to interrupt the noble and learned Baroness, but I made it quite clear that advocates would have those powers. For these trials, they do not require a statute. They will have the right to represent that child at any meeting—immigration, criminal or of any description. I have tried to make that quite clear.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the Minister, but where do the powers come from if there is no statutory basis? He referred to Scotland. The Select Committee heard very interesting evidence from a number of people from Scotland. They told us that in Scotland all the trafficked children are in Glasgow. There is one police force which works very closely with the local authorities. They can make it work in Glasgow. They told us very clearly, particularly one of the MSPs, that they did not think it would work in England because England is not one place. England is a lot of rural communities, urban communities and big cities where the police may not have heard of this, so when the advocate who has no statutory power goes to the police somewhere in the north-east of England they will say, “Get lost”. I can very well see it. In the absence of statutory powers, I do not see what good intentions will do. If the Government would accept in principle what we are asking for, there is no reason why the other place cannot improve it on such matters as the Secretary of State, who is not in the amendment, but we need to have the House with us to get the very basics.
I remind noble Lords that children are worse off than adults at the moment. We are not talking about English children from Rotherham, Rochdale, Luton and Oxford. We are talking about foreign children who are trafficked into this country without the language and not even knowing which country they are in. Many, if not most, of the children do not go through the care system. If they are only accommodated, the degree of social work help is limited. A CAFCASS guardian is not appointed. They do not go through the court system. Consequently, these children are outside the system. These children need the help that those who go through the care system get.
I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, whom I treat as one of my closest friends, is making. I would prefer to see one of the major charities take this on, rather than independent volunteers, because that would have a basis of efficiency that would make me feel a lot happier. She is right about a mentoring or supervisory system for guardians: I should like to see that. Those things are important but they are details that one could put together once it is on the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out the interesting issue of domicile, which I had almost forgotten about. It arises in divorce, where it hardly ever matters, but to my recollection—and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan—it does not arise in the Children Act 1989 or any other child legislation where there is an issue of residence. Consequently, the answer is that if a child leaves the country they are no longer resident.
I see no difficulty in a legal guardian or advocate—I do not mind about the word—working with social workers. CAFCASS, which is an independent, nationwide organisation run by the state, works perfectly well with social workers. Why can an independent child trafficking guardian system not do the same, so long as it has the statutory basis that the social workers have to treat it seriously?
I could make a great many other points but we are, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will remember, being asked for the fourth time not to pursue this. Why is this? It is because of half measures. I would prefer it in the modern slavery Bill but the Government are not offering it there. Let us, consequently, get it into some legislation. If the Government accept it, they can put it into the modern slavery Bill and we do not have to have it in the Immigration Bill. We need the view of the House that this is what should happen. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley)
I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment 56 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 56ZA to 56ZD inclusive for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the terms of our amendment at this stage and then come back to address the debate. I would not do so unless I thought that it would be helpful to the House.
I begin by reminding the House of the background to and context of the proposals in Clause 64. It is a fundamental duty of any Government to protect the British public and to maintain the security of the UK against a range of threats, as I think noble Lords will understand. This provision is intended to strengthen our position in a very important, targeted and limited way.
Sadly, a minority of individuals choose to become British citizens and then, later, seek to threaten our security, subvert our values and laws, and fight against our Armed Forces. It would be perverse if such people, while attacking our forces or terrorising civilians, could invoke our protection. People who have chosen to become British have taken an oath in which they pledge to respect the UK’s rights and freedoms, uphold the UK’s democratic values and fulfil their duties and obligations as British citizens. Despite this oath, some act in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom.
I know that noble Lords are concerned about the potential impact of leaving a person stateless and I accept that this is not something to be contemplated lightly. The Home Secretary acknowledged this when she introduced the clause and made clear how seriously she regards her personal responsibilities in this regard. However, again, I must remind the House that not only would every individual have the opportunity to challenge the decision on appeal but some who are deprived would be able to fall back on another nationality with no difficulty.
I listened to the arguments raised by noble Lords in Committee about the need for an independent reviewer and I am pleased to say that we have agreed to this. We have not yet decided who should conduct reviews. It may be appropriate to appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson, to take on this additional task. We are mindful of the fact that if the review of deprivation power is added to the demands on him, it must not be to the detriment of his capacity to meet his existing important statutory duties. That is why the name of the independent reviewer is not in the amendment. None the less, it may be him.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have just referred to the “independent reviewer of terrorism legislation”. We see the person undertaking this role to be independent. His role, I was going on to say, is to present a report of the reviews to the Home Secretary, who would lay them before Parliament. That could not be done unless the person was independent of the decisions being taken by the Home Secretary. I accept that point. We would then debate them in this House.
We propose a different reporting cycle to the one proposed in Amendment 57A. We recognise the importance of scrutinising the operation of the power at the earliest opportunity, hence the commitment to review after the first year. However, given the low number of orders—I have never made it other than plain that the number of cases is never going to be large in this area—that we expect to be made under the new power, we do not consider that subsequent annual reviews would be necessary or proportionate, particularly as every individual case can be subject to independent judicial scrutiny on appeal. So every individual case can be appealed before a judge. The Government will have an opportunity to address any concerns about the operation of the power arising from the initial report after 12 months, which is important, and the subsequent 36-month review period will then provide a much fuller evidence base from a large number of cases.
Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposes that a parliamentary committee should be established in place of the introduction of the new power in Clause 64. I do not agree that a small committee of six persons from each House is the right place to consider this matter, not least because it would mean that we would have to unpick some decisions already made by this House after careful consideration of a report from the Liaison Committee about which Select Committees should be established in the new Session which makes it clear where the decision for this kind of nomination should lie. The appropriate place for scrutiny of these proposals is in the whole House considering a Bill, as we are doing now, and we should not shy away from making difficult decisions.
This is a matter of national security and we should be wary of unnecessary delay, which would leave a loophole to be exploited and create a barrier to effective action for what is likely to be at least a considerable number of months while the committee deliberated on this action.
That is my intervention at this stage. I hope it helps the House to consider the context of why the Government are not likely to accept the noble Lord’s amendment and prefer their own.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 56ZA to—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that my responses have been inadequate. It is a matter of pride that I have sought to answer noble Lords’ queries during the passage of this Bill. The noble Baroness has never implied that anything I have supplied her with has been inadequate, and I am sorry if she has taken that view.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
At all times the Minister has sought to be courteous and to give as much information as possible. However, he will recall that in Committee I asked questions and he apologised for not having available some of the information needed to answer them. It is no slight on him personally; he has made a great effort to try to answer. It is just that there have not been answers to some of the questions I have asked.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have written a report on every day of this Bill, and I will be writing about today’s debate to tell all noble Lords of those things that have arisen where I am not in a position to give an answer. The noble Baroness is very generous. Indeed I do my best but there is a limited amount of time and I do not want to take up too much time on an issue that noble Lords have debated with great skill for the elucidation of the House.
As I made clear in my earlier intervention, this is an important and sensitive issue that goes to the heart of ensuring that the Home Secretary has available to her the necessary powers to respond to changes and threats to our national security. Amendments 56ZA and 56ZB were discussed in Committee, and I can assure the House that this power was drafted taking full account of the need to ensure consistency with our international obligations. The Home Secretary will personally review every case and in doing so will of course consider, in line with our obligations under the ECHR, whether deprivation is a necessary and proportionate action in response to the conduct of the individual and the threat that they pose to the UK. I hope noble Lords will be reassured by our proposal for a statutory independent review that will be able to look at these matters as part of its scrutiny of the operation of this power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a number of questions. She asked whether the independent reviewer would have access to information on whether the deprivation action was taken while the person was in the UK or abroad. The independent reviewer will be provided with information on all aspects of the operation of the power, including the circumstances—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I may just finish my answer. I think that it will be helpful to the noble Baroness if I do so. I will then give way.
The independent reviewer will be able to look at and will be provided with information on all aspects of the operation of the power, including the circumstances of individual deprivation decisions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I was not asking whether the independent reviewer would be allowed to do that once this law has come into force. I was asking the question that we have asked again and again about those who have already been deprived of citizenship. We have been told that we cannot have that information for security reasons, so the independent reviewer has suggested that perhaps he could have the information about those who have been deprived of citizenship under the existing legislation when they were abroad.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I see the point that the noble Baroness is making. I see no reason why not. If it has security connotations then perhaps it cannot be made public. However, our idea is that the independent reviewer should not be denied information that it considers important to perform its statutory duties as required by our amendment.
The noble Baroness asked about an example of where an individual would be deprived of citizenship on grounds of economic well-being. I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on 26 March and a copy would have been sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. In my letter I agreed that any situation which threatens vital economic assets is likely to be covered by terrorism considerations, but for that very reason we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be properly considered under this power.
The noble Baroness asked whether this goes against the UK’s international obligations to those countries that allow entry to British citizens who are subsequently deprived of that nationality. In the vast majority of cases, it does not. However, the Government note that the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness created limited obligations in this respect. These obligations are limited to the 11 states that have ratified the protocol and apply only if certain conditions are met.
A number of noble Lords mentioned Professor Goodwin-Gill’s paper and his illustration that it was contrary to international law. Professor Goodwin-Gill has some expertise on this topic since he was part of the legal team representing Al-Jedda, but on this topic we believe that he is wrong. He based his analysis in large part on the opinion of Judge Read in the 1955 International Court of Justice case of Nottebohm, but Judge Read’s judgment was a dissenting judgment. We cannot accept the conclusions which Professor Goodwin-Gill derived from it. There is a very limited basis for an obligation to readmit people deprived of citizenship in very limited circumstances, as set out in Article 1 of the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness. The limited number of state parties that have ratified this convention, together with the lack of state practice conforming to its provisions by states that are not party to the convention, shows that it does not constitute customary international law.
Lord Avebury
I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he has gone into some detail on Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill’s paper, would it be possible for him to lodge a paper in the Library, commenting on all the points raised in it? The Minister also quoted the views of the UK representative when the special protocol was agreed, who was very much in support of the idea that depriving people of their citizenship while they were abroad is illegal.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will be happy to do that. However, I am conscious that noble Lords have been asking for answers today and to give what my noble friend has asked for would probably take the rest of the evening. I do not intend to do that, but I will do it in writing and lodge a copy in the Library.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry, but a few minutes ago the Minister said something about obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Am I right that the Government still take the view that the convention has no application extra-territorially if the Minister takes away someone’s citizenship when they are outside the country?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I was coming to this. I have been asked a lot of questions and I intend to answer them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked whether this would affect the UK’s contribution. It may be useful to point out that the UK is not alone in proposing this approach. Belgium and Ireland, among others, provide for the prospect of making a person stateless in circumstances analogous to what we are proposing. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the JCHR. Last year, in S1 and others v the Secretary of State, SIAC rejected the idea that Articles 2 or 3 would be engaged extraterritorially. Even if Article 8 were engaged extraterritorially, the interference would be lawful if it was necessary and proportionate. The high threshold set out in Clause 64 means that interference would be proportionate so I regard this as a rather academic point. I hope my noble friend, who does not lack academic credentials, is prepared to accept this. This was decided in 1973. This was like the case of the people in east Africa, to which my noble friend referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a passionate speech on the evils of statelessness after the Second World War. The UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness was agreed in 1961. The view of the United Nations was that, in extreme circumstances, people could be left stateless, as the JCHR accepted. This proposal is compatible with that UN convention. My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked what would happen to people in the UK who were made destitute. The UK would continue to have human rights obligations towards those in the UK and could not allow them to become destitute as a result of its actions. She asked whether these individuals were exempt from leave under the immigration laws and what would happen to family members. Family members would still be able to apply for leave within the rules, including the statelessness provisions, and would not be subject to restrictions unless their conduct justified it. My noble friend Lord Paddick, in a brave and thoughtful speech, said that legal aid is allowed for the appeal process. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked whether other countries will render people stateless in the UK on a tit-for-tat basis. Other countries can already do this and those affected would be subject to our immigration rules for stateless people. This clause will not provoke extra cases because, as we have stated, it will be used only for a few extreme cases. In any event, we believe that many will go on to acquire another nationality.
“( ) After section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 insert—
“40B Review of power under section 40(4A)
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for a review of the operation of the relevant deprivation power to be carried out in relation to each of the following periods—
(a) the initial one year period;(b) each subsequent three year period.(2) The “relevant deprivation power” is the power to make orders under section 40(2) to deprive persons of a citizenship status in the circumstances set out in section 40(4A).
(3) A review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.
(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out a review in relation to a particular period, the person must—
(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report sent under subsection (4)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the person who produced the report, exclude a part of the report from the copy laid before Parliament if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security for that part of the report to be made public.
(7) The Secretary of State may—
(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review, and(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).(8) In this section—
“initial one year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when section 40(4A) comes into force;
“subsequent three year period” means a period of three years beginning with the first day after the most recent of—
(a) the initial one year period, or(b) the most recent subsequent three year period.””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, if the Opposition were prepared to accept Amendment 56A, I should be prepared to move it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has moved his amendment formally but, as the matter has been referred to a committee, should this not also be referred to a committee? It would seem more sensible to us that, if a committee were discussing something, it would then decide the nature of any review that would take place after implementation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The point that I was trying to make was that, if this were to form part of the substantive Bill, it would be possible for it to be considered as part of the Government’s proposals in this respect. I do not want the House to have another vote on the issue, but I feel that this is not in conflict with the amendment successfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, I am told from the Box that there is no need for Amendment 56A, so I will not move it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and, of course, I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford. He is patient, but I think he is also a realist. I think he understands that he may have been too optimistic in expecting this measure to be included in the Bill. However, some of the points that he mentioned in his speech, and which are referred to in the amendment, are very much sentiments that we share. I share his aim of bringing offenders to justice and fully support closing down any avenue that could impact on our ability to prevent and detect crime. However, I hope that I can explain to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend why legislation in this area is not necessary and would not be beneficial to the Home Office.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office directly contributes to the Home Secretary’s key aims of securing borders, tackling terrorism and reducing crime. It does this through its public protection strategy and by sharing data and intelligence with other parts of the Home Office and other agencies. Access to personal data for the purposes set out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause is already permissible.
My noble friend has suggested that this passport information could be made available for deprivation decisions under the proposed power in Clause 64, on which we have just had a Division. This would not significantly improve the evidence base for these sorts of deprivation decisions. The Home Office retains information regarding an individual’s previous recorded nationality or passport from their immigration records and will undertake research to determine these facts. Within the new power, the Home Office will also consider the ability to acquire a former, or another nationality, although this will not be a bar to action, as I said in moving a previous amendment. We would not necessarily rely on information provided by the individual, who may seek to benefit from renouncing or not declaring other passports or nationalities.
My noble friend has also suggested that information collected could be made available to immigration officers for consideration when undertaking their duties. Immigration officers already have powers to require a person to furnish any information that is relevant to an examination, which may include details of dual nationality where necessary and appropriate.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office does not collect data on the number of passport holders who have a second nationality. My noble friend Lord Marlesford is aware of that. The passport application, however, requires all customers to submit any sort of passport, British or otherwise, at the point of application. That information is collected to help to confirm identity and is recorded on the person’s UK passport record. HM Passport Office receives about 6 million passport applications a year from domestic applicants. It receives a further 380,000 applications from overseas. Because of the smaller quantity involved, HMPO has been able to estimate that about 50% of overseas applications may involve applicants who hold dual nationality.
HM Passport Office is required to gather information that is relevant solely to the passport application. The issue of dual nationality is not directly relevant to the UK passport application process, because a person is not prevented from having another nationality under UK law. Collecting data for purposes other than the issue of the passport would require HM Passport Office to change its published data-sharing principles and to consider the possible impact on the exercise of the royal prerogative. Furthermore, HM Passport Office is not permitted to use the passport fee to subsidise the collecting of data for a purpose that is not relevant to the issue of the passport. The agency is required to charge applicants a fee that covers only the cost of the issuing of passports.
In any event, I am not convinced that establishing and maintaining such a database would provide any significant benefit. We already require existing and previous passports to be submitted at the point of application. Information is also held on the nationality of persons who have registered or naturalised as British citizens. Gathering information on dual nationals simply because they are dual nationals would therefore be of very limited value. It would be disproportionate, as there would be no specific benefit either to support an application process or to assist in preventing and detecting crime.
However, possession of another passport is of interest to HM Passport Office for the identity reasons that I have given above. In considering the amendment, I have asked that we look at the benefits and consequences of placing a requirement on British passport holders to submit to HM Passport Office, during the lifetime of their British passport, any new, renewed or replacement passport issued to them by the country from which they hold dual nationality. I will write separately to my noble friend when we have considered this further.
I have taken the opportunity of providing your Lordships with a detailed response to this amendment because the noble Baroness said that she would like to hear the reasoning behind the Government’s position. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that I have been fuller than I might have been. This very much reflects the seriousness of the issues that he has raised today and previously in the House—he does the House great service by doing so. However, I am satisfied with the existing processes to record dual nationality and passports when required and that, importantly, mechanisms are in place to share those data with law enforcement agencies, including border staff. So, to some degree, we have met the objectives of his amendment. I hope that, with that clarification, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It does not answer my amendment, although I suppose that there is an indication that the Home Office is tiptoeing towards doing the sensible thing. I shall certainly continue to press this. The next time that there is relevant legislation, I shall attach this amendment to it. I hope that we will have a strong and full debate in Committee on this because I am certain that my proposal is simple, feasible, fully in accordance with freedom and would make a very useful additional weapon to ensure that our borders are properly policed. The information that led me to bring this forward originally was good information, from those who are responsible for the practical methods of protecting our national security. I believe that this can be done.
My noble friend mentioned the possibility of non-compliance and concealment. There is a simple remedy for this. If someone, in applying for a British passport or a renewal, with the requirement that they disclose other passports that they hold, fails to do so, it is obvious that they have not complied with their obligation in getting the British passport and it could immediately be cancelled. That would be an easy and satisfactory penalty for non-compliance.
I believe that my proposal is both needed and practical and I shall return to it. However, in the mean while, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend has long campaigned about the citizenship rights of children of British mothers, and indeed he was involved in getting us to where we are today in having a route for those born before 1983 to acquire the status that they would have had had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. However, as my noble friend will recognise, nationality law is complex and it is not straightforward to legislate to cater for all the anomalies that exist.
Before I discuss the amendment, noble Lords will remember that my noble friend introduced an amendment in Committee concerning the citizenship position of illegitimate children of British fathers. I committed to consider the matter further. I have not forgotten. It is in hand and I am continuing to look at this in conjunction with my noble friend. He will have seen our first two attempts to deal with this matter and he can be assured that yet another, more straightforward version will be with him shortly. The intention is that an amendment on the issue will be brought forward at Third Reading.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend today seeks, as he said, to amend Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow a person to acquire British citizenship through their grandmother if they would have been able to do so had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. I understand that citizenship could normally be passed on for one generation born overseas but that there are a limited number of cases where a person could acquire citizenship on the basis of their grandfather’s citizenship. An example of this might be where the grandfather was born in the UK and either his child or grandchild was born in a country, such as a UK protectorate, where the Crown exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Although I recognise what my noble friend is trying to achieve here, I reiterate the point that was made when this issue was debated in the past: we can only go so far to right the wrongs of history. The original intention of Section 4C was to cater for the children of UK-born women, but the current legislation affects all children of British women. However, we think that there would be difficulties in extending this further to cover the grandchildren of British women as that could result in even more complexities. I think that my noble friend will recognise the complexity of the law in this area.
We recognise that there are some people who acquired citizenship through a grandfather and others who could not do so through a grandmother. However, where families have maintained a close and ongoing connection with the UK, those grandchildren could have acquired British citizenship through another route, such as registration or naturalisation based on a period of residence here. Those whose parents have never lived in the UK and have not established their own connections here are likely to have the citizenship of the country of their birth or residence.
I know that this will be disappointing to my noble friend but I cannot accept his amendment. However, I thank him for bringing it forward and for giving me an opportunity to explain the Government’s position.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I recognise the Minister’s phrase about not being able to rectify all the wrongs of history but I do not agree with that expression. I think that we ought to remedy the wrongs of history and this would have been an excellent opportunity to do so in the case of what I think my noble friend acknowledges would be a very small number of people. However, I also recognise the realities of the situation—that, unlike the two previous amendments on which there were Divisions, I would not be so successful if I were to seek the opinion of the House.
Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment but, first, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for what he said about the amendment to enable illegitimate children born before 1983 to acquire British citizenship in circumstances where they would already have been able to do so if they had been legitimate. I hope that in our final draft, following the previous two, which the Minister mentioned, we will give the Secretary of State discretion to waive requirements that may be imposed on a parent in the event of the parent being unco-operative or no longer able to fulfil the requirement by reason of incapacity or death. I am also concerned that in the final draft we should avoid any ambiguity between registration and consular registration and avoid imposing any consular registration requirements which the parents of an illegitimate child might not have met, bearing in mind the stigma attached to illegitimacy in those days.
When my noble friend comes to produce the third draft at Third Reading, I should be most grateful if those points could be borne in mind. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty regarding the welfare of children
For the avoidance of doubt, this Act does not limit any duty imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (duty regarding the welfare of children).”
“(ca) the first regulations under section 49(1);(cb) the first regulations under section 49(5);(cc) the first regulations under section 50(3);(cd) the first regulations under section 50(4);”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the amendments in this group are government amendments, responding to the parts of the Bill dealing with sham marriages. They respond directly to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Part 4 of the Bill. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the issues raised by these powers.
Part 4 of the Bill will establish in England and Wales a new referral and investigation scheme aimed at tackling sham marriages and civil partnerships entered into for the purpose of circumventing the UK’s immigration controls. Under the scheme, all notices of marriages and civil partnerships referred to the Home Office will be considered for investigation.
Clause 49 provides the basis for the conduct of an investigation into a referred marriage or civil partnership where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that it is a sham and decides to investigate. Clause 50 makes further provision for the basis on which such an investigation will be conducted.
Clauses 49 and 50 provide for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State relating to the investigation of a proposed marriage or civil partnership under the scheme. These regulations will set out the requirements with which the couple must comply as part of the investigation. It will be necessary for the couple to comply with these requirements in order to complete the marriage or civil partnership notice process.
The committee is right to point in particular to the significance of the implications arising from non-compliance with an investigation. A couple failing to comply with an investigation will not be able to marry or form a civil partnership on the basis of that notice, and will have to give notice again if they still wish to marry or form a civil partnership. The committee recommended that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate for regulations made under Clauses 49 and 50.
We accept that it would be appropriate for the first set of regulations made under each of these powers to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and this is provided for by Amendment 59. This will enable both Houses to give full consideration to the substance of the regulations when the referral and investigation scheme is established. However, we do not consider that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for subsequent changes to the regulations which may be necessary after the scheme has been implemented. To require a debate in both Houses would be unnecessarily burdensome, as any such changes are likely to be minor.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 provides for the disclosure of information by registration officials to the Secretary of State and other registration officials for immigration purposes, such as preventing immigration offences. The Secretary of State may by order specify further immigration purposes to enable the disclosure power to keep pace with developments in the law and in operational requirements.
Clause 53(6) makes equivalent provision where the referral and investigation scheme and these information-sharing provisions have been extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland by an order under Clause 52. The committee’s view was that these powers are similar to the power to extend information-sharing contained in Section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee has therefore recommended that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have accepted the committee’s recommendation. Amendments 60 and 61 provide for the order-making powers under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 and Clause 53(6) to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I will remind noble Lords how it concerns the removals and appeals provisions of the Bill and how they impact on people, including children and young people, who have no access to legal assistance.
Amendment 62 seeks to insert a sunrise provision in Clause 72. It provides that Clause 1 on removals and Part 2 on appeals cannot come into force until an order has been made dealing with legal aid for affected cases. This means that we will have to make sure that legal aid is extended and not reduced, and that it will make particular provision for people under 25 who entered the UK as minors. It is essential to see the removal provisions in Clause 1 and the appeals provisions in Part 2 in the context of diminishing access to legal assistance for those whom the Bill will affect.
The Government have stressed in relation to Clause 1, including in their fact sheet on the clause, that people subject to removal will be advised to seek legal advice as early as possible. This, however, will not be much use if people cannot obtain that advice because, first, they cannot afford to pay a lawyer; secondly, because immigration cases are not in the scope of legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and, thirdly, because they do not meet the Government’s proposed residence test for civil legal aid, if that test is introduced as planned in August of this year.
We are talking about people being forced to leave the UK and the division of family members, one from the other, without their having the benefit of a lawyer to advise them on their and their family’s rights, including the rights of any affected children. This is about young people who have grown up in the UK, including young care leavers, being deported to a country they do not know without an appeal right and without even having the chance to speak to a solicitor about their case.
The Coram Children’s Legal Centre has done a great deal of work on this and has demonstrated why legal aid should be available. It told me that it had worked on cases where a child has been brought into the UK as an infant and has later been taken into care. The child has indefinite leave to remain until it reaches the age of 18 when, at that age, the Home Office tells them that it intends to revoke their leave and to deport them to a country of which they have no memory.
What of children such as these? A child’s immigration case based, for example, on the child having lived for most of their life in the UK, will attract no legal aid even if the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court. A child with no lawful leave will be excluded from legal aid by the residence test, even if that child is only seven years of age. Proposals to restore legal aid for children’s welfare under Sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act made in the Government’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights are welcome but they fail to address a core problem. A young person can be deported before there has been any opportunity for judicial oversight of the Home Office’s decision. They do not get legal aid for their immigration case, nor will they get legal aid for any judicial review. The issues at stake in removal and deportation cases are of the utmost importance in the lives of children, young people and families. Legal aid should be available for such cases.
The Government have said that there is the option of applying for exceptional funding but, after speaking to the Minister for Justice, the right honourable Simon Hughes, I understand that very few of such applications are successful. I was shown the paperwork, the application form that a young person has to fill in for exceptional purpose funding. It consists of 14 pages. I have looked at the 14 pages and I have looked at the Bill. I am not a lawyer by any means, but if the application form is so confusing and difficult for us to understand, how can you expect a young person of 18 years of age, who has no legal training, to stand up and speak for themselves because there is no legal aid available and a lawyer cannot be provided. The Government must look after all young people who are in need of legal assistance. If they do not get it, then British justice affecting young people is breaking down.
There is to be a review of the Bill after between three and five years. I would like that to be sooner. I would like to see how it is proceeding and for it to be kept under constant review.
I would also like to see more generous exceptional case funding. The Government expected about 7,000 cases and instead they got about seven. There has been wrong judgment right from the start. How many cases were expected and how many arose? We need a review far sooner than three or five years.
The Bill and its amendments are so complicated that this 14-page application form should be looked at immediately and simplified so that a person facing extradition will be able to understand exactly what it means. If my three requests are granted—a review before three years, more generous exceptional case funds and a simplified form—it would be a tremendous step forward. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, Amendment 62 seeks to amend Clause 72, which provides for the commencement provisions in the Bill. It requires the Government to make an affirmative order under Section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—or LASPO, as we refer to it in the House—so that removals and all appeals are eligible for legal aid where someone is under 25 and entered the UK as a child. We debated this amendment in Committee when my noble friend Lord Attlee explained that this amendment would stall and potentially block changes to removals and appeals in the Bill.
The scope of the legal aid scheme was approved by Parliament and settled by LASPO. The Government have recently consulted on introducing a residence test for civil legal aid. Parliament will have the opportunity to consider these proposals shortly. However, we have no plans to extend the scope beyond the high-priority matters on which Parliament has agreed.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who is not in her place at the moment, referred to the JCHR report on the residence test. She noted that the committee concluded that the Government’s response to that report had not gone far enough. With respect, we do not agree with that comment. The Government considered the JCHR report carefully and in response modified the exceptions to the residence test, including for children. These changes ensure that the test is fair and that legal aid is targeted where it is justified while achieving the essential policy aim of targeting legal aid at those with a strong connection to the UK. We do not accept that the residence test would result in any contravention of our domestic and international legal obligations, including our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
While this amendment is well intentioned, it is unnecessary. The vast majority of unaccompanied children are asylum seekers and will receive legal aid. Victims of trafficking also receive legal aid, and indeed we discussed their status earlier today. Children or young adults who are not unaccompanied will have the support of their family in the UK.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Roberts raised concerns about the number of successful applications for exceptional funding. The fact that a lower-than- forecast number of successful applications has been made does not indicate that the system is defective. It is important to note that estimates made about volumes are precisely that—estimates. The fact that the volume of applications has been lower than forecast is clearly also relevant to the number of applications granted. Legal aid is and will remain available for the highest- priority cases such as asylum seekers and advice and damages claims for victims of trafficking. Children and those who entered the UK as children who fall into one of these groups are eligible for legal aid. It is right that these limited funds should be targeted towards them. Therefore, it is only those children and young adults who do not fall into one of the high-priority groups who will not be eligible for legal aid.
My noble friend asked why the exceptional funding mechanism is so bureaucratic. We do not accept that the system is overly bureaucratic. There is a bespoke application form to fill in which is designed to help providers present the relevant information. In addition, clients can ask for a provisional determination concerning their case directly from the Legal Aid Agency if they wish to do so. I appreciate the enthusiasm with which my noble friend has addressed these issues, but in the light of my points, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I made clear my support for the Government when I spoke on Amendment 23. Therefore, it will not surprise the House that I have some difficulty with the thinking behind this group of amendments. I shall not repeat my philosophical concerns, but where the matter comes to a sharp point is the position on overstaying and illegal migrants. We need to enforce immigration law. There is public concern about it. If we delay taking action, that public concern will increase and give rise to perhaps nastier people trying to ride that particular issue and gain publicity from it. I am interested in hearing how we minimise delays in moving this part of the legislation forward. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, introduce Amendment 25 and how it could lead to a need for further primary legislation, it seemed to me that that could be a means by which the measure could be stopped altogether and the whole proposal would sink with all hands.
To a lesser extent, I have the same problem with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which seems to add another cycle into the consideration of an issue which is very high on the public agenda. If we fail to address it, we will probably regret not having done so. I hope that my noble friend, as he has on other occasions having made concessions, will stick to his guns and make sure that we can move this secondary legislation forward in the very near future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, we have discussed at length and, I hope, to some good ends the important objective of this part of the Bill. I want to restate some of the background for the benefit of the House.
We are seeking in this Bill to control illegal migrant access to the private rented sector, because we have listened carefully to the public’s concern about the need to prevent illegal immigration. That follows on very neatly from the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. To this end, the Government are committed to remaining firm on border controls, but we can provide a complete response to illegal immigration only if we work in partnership with those offering employment, housing and other services to deny the practical means of remaining to those without permission to stay.
The landlord provisions have been carefully drafted to deliver a scheme which works, which defines the differing responsibilities of landlord, agent and tenant, and which provides clear, robust safeguards for both landlords and vulnerable groups in need of accommodation. The drafting mirrors the existing civil penalty scheme for employers of illegal workers, which we know works well in practice. The proposed opposition amendment would sweep away these carefully constructed clauses and replace them with a pilot provision lacking the necessary detail and clarity.
I understand the desire of noble Lords to ensure that the landlords scheme is “workable” and that the provisions are tested and carefully evaluated. Indeed, it is our intention to adopt a carefully phased approach to implementation and to ensure that we get the guidance and support services absolutely right before considering wider implementation beyond the first phase. As we have made clear, decisions on further implementation will be taken after the general election during the next Parliament. I should make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we need no further incentive to get this right than to deliver a policy which we consider is important for the control of illegal immigration to this country.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for tabling her Amendment 24. The Government have given a commitment to a carefully managed, phased implementation of the landlords scheme. The scheme will be implemented initially, as has been said by noble Lords, following on from commitments that I have already made, in a single geographical area, and the Government have committed to a full evaluation of the first phase. Any decisions on a wider rollout will be taken in the light of the evaluation after the general election during the next Parliament.
My noble friend’s amendment is intended to be supportive, and I have considerable sympathy with the objectives behind it—my noble friend seeks reassurance on issues that I know concern her. As the House will know, I have been discussing the landlord provisions with my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and a number of expert groups, including the Residential Landlords Association, Crisis and the British Property Federation. I completely share their concern that the scheme should be introduced carefully, with the benefit of advice and input from expert groups.
I can therefore inform the House that, following these discussions and in the light of the contributions that noble Lords across the House have made in debates on these provisions, we have decided to convene a formal consultative panel to oversee the operation and evaluation of the first phase. It will be chaired by a Home Office Minister. The panel will be established within the next few months and its full composition will be finalised once a decision has been reached on the location of the initial phase—we need local knowledge to support the group. I have invited the noble Lord, Lord Best, and a number of groups to join the panel. It will also include local representatives from the area covered by the trial. The panel will provide transparency, objectivity and the necessary degree of expert input for the first phase, the location of which will be determined and published before the House rises for the summer.
We expect to announce the location for the first phase at that time and will then indicate the principal proposed themes for the evaluation, leaving it to the panel to lead work on the development of specific evaluation measures and metrics. Of course, there are obvious areas that it would be sensible for any proper valuation to cover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made clear in her contribution, including the ease with which landlords and tenants can comply with the new checks and access the necessary guidance and support services. I hope that I can reassure the House that one objective of such an evaluation is to eliminate any impact on vulnerable groups or the incidence of unlawful racial discrimination by landlords. The desired objective, which lies at the bottom of the whole policy, is to deny rented accommodation to illegal migrants.
However, Amendment 25, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would remove the framework from primary legislation altogether and place it wholly in secondary legislation, lessening the degree of parliamentary oversight. That simply ignores the fact that the provisions have enjoyed the closest scrutiny in this Parliament. We have, as far as possible, placed details of the proposed scheme in the primary legislation, reserving the use of regulation-making powers only where necessary. The amendment would not provide a clear legal basis to operate new landlord duties, even as a pilot. It provides no mechanism for landlords to object or appeal against a penalty, rendering the new clause incompatible with human rights law. Neither does it provide transparency in the type of tenancy agreement to be exempt from the checking requirement.
The Bill makes those provisions clear in primary legislation, in the interest of providing certainty for vulnerable groups. The Government have worked closely with bodies representing landlords, students, the homeless and vulnerable and provided important safeguards in primary legislation. It would be understandable if they were concerned if those safeguards were no longer enshrined in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will know that the negative procedure provides for further scrutiny before any further rollout of the scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked specifically about lodgers of social tenants. A social tenant who takes a lodger will be a landlord for the purposes of the scheme. The Home Office will work with social landlords to help their tenants understand their obligations.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The reason I raised the matter was to ensure that lodgers were included as part of the evaluation and, going back to the question of vulnerable groups, that children were specifically considered.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that I made that clear. I think that the record will show that I said that that would form part of the evaluation.
Let us not forget that the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on which we have not yet voted, but which I think the whole House welcomes, puts the welfare of children at the centre of the Bill in all considerations. So what I am saying includes children and vulnerable groups as part of the evaluation of the scheme. That is part of making it effective. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lady Benjamin as well. Those with outstanding in-time applications will be allowed to rent. I have written to her on many points that she has rightly raised on behalf of an important sector of vulnerable people. I thank her for her correspondence.
“(6) The code (or revised code)—
(a) may not be issued unless a draft has been laid before Parliament, and(b) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order of the Secretary of State.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, these amendments have been tabled in the light of comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee recommended that the code regarding the prevention of discrimination should be laid before Parliament and then brought into force by negative resolution order. The Government accept this recommendation.
In relation to the code regarding general matters, the committee considered that this should be subject to no less a degree of parliamentary scrutiny than that which applies to the equivalent code relating to the employers’ civil penalty scheme. The committee further suggested that this code should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We considered this carefully, but concluded that the negative resolution procedure would provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have discussed this to some degree in the previous amendments. This code will provide technical guidance on matters of interpretation and practical operation, such as factors to be taken into account in establishing whether a residential tenancy agreement grants a right of occupation as a main and only place of residence and the factors to be taken into account in calculating the amount of a penalty that a landlord or agent should be liable to pay.
This is analogous to the equivalent code of practice relating to illegal working, which is brought into force by the negative procedure. For these reasons the Government believe that the new code should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a consistent manner. The amendment has been tabled accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I have only one brief comment to make; indeed, the Minister has already touched on it with his comment about the suggestions that have been made, in at least one case, that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate. I am not quite sure why the Minister is arguing that he thinks that the negative procedure would be equally effective. If the Government believe that the negative procedure is just as effective as the affirmative procedure presumably they see no distinction between the two. Clearly there is a distinction. Clearly Parliament believes that the affirmative procedure is a more effective one, since it requires an affirmative resolution by Parliament in support of the proposition that the Government have made. Can the Minister put forward a more convincing argument than he has as to why they will not accept that it should be by affirmative procedure and why they think it should be by negative procedure?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I suppose we could argue about this for quite a long time if we chose to. I laid out consistency with the employers’ regulations, which are very similar in content. As I mentioned in the previous debate, the thing about the negative procedure is that it is open to any Member to bring the subject matter to debate in this House. Parliamentary scrutiny is not overridden. My hope is that it will be possible, by the time we get to this phase, that we will indeed have a situation where the House is well informed with the issues involved, well informed with the evaluation of the scheme, and well informed of the way in which the scheme is intending to work. I believe that at that point government and Parliament will be confident that they can proceed and that proper scrutiny has been provided. One would have to say that this has been very carefully considered by the Government and we have come to the conclusion that the negative procedure is the appropriate form of introducing this statutory instrument.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I agree that this is a very useful opportunity to inform the House of where we are on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will understand that the provisions in the Bill are one thing and the wider provisions for implementing health service charging are another. We had a really useful meeting with my noble friend Lord Howe where a number of noble Lords present came to talk about this issue. I think noble Lords will agree he is very much focused on the full implications of any changes. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that Médecins du Monde corresponds with me on a fairly regular basis so I know what its concerns are and unfortunately it was not at the meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If it had been I think it would have understood better the way in which the health service reforms were being taken forward. The other thing which it would certainly have picked up is that it is absolutely clear that treatment for infectious public health conditions is free to all and will remain so. We should just make that clear; I hope that it reassures my noble friend Lady Williams and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
As we discussed at length when we were talking about this issue, any exemptions from the NHS charging of short-term visitors and illegal migrants are not really a matter for the Home Office. This is not a provision that is being enacted in the Bill and is not a question on which the Home Office would make a decision. Exemptions are a matter for the Department of Health. I know that they are being considered very sensitively. Let us not forget that, within the devolved remit, while there is one United Kingdom for immigration purposes there are four national health services within the United Kingdom. It is not for me from this Dispatch Box to speak on their behalf. I have no wish to cause a constitutional crisis by inadvertently taking over responsibilities for which I have no responsibility.
My noble friend Lord Howe has agreed to meet again with noble Lords. I think that everybody felt that that was a helpful meeting. I want to keep everybody in the loop; I can act as a facilitator in this respect. When my noble friend’s department has developed more detailed proposals for reforming NHS overseas visitor charging arrangements—and it is that charging which is being looked at in particular, for people on short visits here—this will provide the appropriate time and context for discussions on the NHS charging arrangements for these groups.
Going back to the beginning, I confirm that treatment for infectious public health conditions is free for all and will remain so. I hope that that is a big reassurance. Given that reassurance, alongside our existing commitment that GP and nurse consultations will remain free to all and that that is not limited to the first consultation, I hope that the noble Baroness will indeed withdraw her amendment. I look forward to having further discussions with her and my noble friend Lord Howe in the future.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all who have supported the amendment. What is confusing is that Clauses 37 and 38 cover the new charges and restrictions of healthcare access in this Bill. Therefore, it is surely an immigration and health matter. Therefore, unless there is a combination working together on this complex matter, there will be confusion and people may fall through the net. I hope that I have helped to get the message across that public health and protection are vital, especially when dealing with vulnerable people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the intention of this amendment. It is entirely wrong that local people in particular, but also many other people resident in this country, should be bypassed in the recruitment process and not even have the opportunity to seek work. I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission already referred to. We have done some work in the past on the meat-processing industry, where such practices were found—not prevalent, but found. We intend also to do some work on the cleaning industry.
However, I am not sure that the amendment as it stands will address the problem adequately. That is to say, it refers to recruitment agencies located in this country. It could very readily be bypassed simply by subcontracting with recruitment agencies elsewhere. Also, there are occasions where we wish to enable employers to recruit overseas exclusively. Think of schools that seek native speakers to teach French. They probably want to be able to advertise in France, to French students, and we do not wish to prohibit that. I will just echo the point that, if the Minister thinks something can be done, it will not be through this amendment as it stands. However, the avoidance of both unfair discrimination and the appearance of it is surely an important issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has brought this back, and it has been very useful to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, about her take on this issue. She raises some of the subtle things at the edge of any blanket restriction that might be made.
I said right at the beginning when we debated this issue in Committee that the Opposition and the Government are not very far apart at all in this area. It is a matter of time and place rather than the detail of the amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, accepts that the amendment may not be quite perfect. I cannot commit to come back on this issue at Third Reading. There is likely to be an announcement very shortly on this whole issue, so it would be more appropriate to wait until that announcement has been made, as it will make clear what the Government’s position is. I do not think that the Opposition or any other noble Lords will find themselves very far from the Government on this issue.
To look at where we are, the Government are committed to protecting the rights of UK workers. We have said that, and as I said in Committee, the Government have already taken tougher action against abuse of the national minimum wage, both as regards its enforcement and by increasing the financial penalty for breaches. We are taking a more robust approach to the employers of illegal workers, including through a doubling of the maximum civil penalty to £20,000, which has now been approved by both Houses.
We are ensuring greater collaboration across Government to increase our “enforcement reach” and the range of sanctions that can be brought to bear against exploitative employment practices. Furthermore, the Government have commissioned a report by the Migration Advisory Committee into the causes of low-skilled migration and its social impacts.
That is why we are trying to look at the bigger picture. The amendment identifies a particular problem—and I acknowledge that it is a problem—but there is a bigger picture: why is so much of migration into this country in low-skilled jobs? We know that the social impacts of this cause concern across wider communities. We are taking action to prevent abuse of our public services and benefits systems by migrants, including those who come from the European Economic Area. As I have said previously, employment levels have risen, since this Government came into office, by 1.3 million, of which 78% is accounted for by UK nationals. However, I recognise there is a problem with a small number of unscrupulous employment agencies that source labour exclusively from overseas, particularly eastern Europe, and subject their workers to exploitative conditions. We have to acknowledge that.
We are sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment but, as it stands, it would not achieve its aims at all. It will need very careful review because an agency could evade its scope and be in the clear simply by signing up a single UK recruit. That will not address the problem which the noble Lord has brought to the attention of the House. The ordinary residence test is very weak and easy to pass. However, more does need to be done to tackle such unfair recruitment practices, a view which I think noble Lords generally share. Ministers are actively considering how best to protect British workers from this type of discrimination and, as I have said, the House may expect announcements to be made very shortly on this issue. In the light of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply. In Committee, he said that,
“more should be done to tackle these types of unfair recruitment practices. Ministers will actively consider how best to protect British workers from this type of discrimination and we will seek to bring forward proposals shortly”.—[Official Report, 17/3/14; col. 19.]
We do not seem to have made any progress at all. The Minister is clearly not prepared to pick up what was inherent in my suggestion: that I would be happy to withdraw my amendment if he gave a commitment to come back with the Government’s own amendment at Third Reading.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, before we consider this legislation, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House or the government Chief Whip can explain why we are taking government legislation on a Thursday when we have been given four weeks for Easter and we will not be sitting for a week in which the House of Commons is sitting. Will she confirm that Prorogation will not take place until 21 May, as already announced, and not earlier as rumoured? This House is not here just to consider government legislation; it is here to debate the issues of the day and to hold the Government to account.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his thoughtful contribution to the debate. I hope I can address the issues he has raised. We have had a good debate. We always have good debates on this subject. The House is not always in agreement with the Government’s position on issues, but I think we have come closer together as a result of the debate, the provisions of the Bill and the amendments that I have been able to bring forward today.
I do not want to sound boring, but I will reiterate the mantra that the Government’s objective is to attract the brightest and the best. There is no limit on numbers. We have to say that because it puts right at the top of the page what the Government’s policy is. We will go on, I hope, as we discuss this matter, and as I answer noble Lords’ questions, to demonstrate that the proposals in the Bill are not designed to dilute in any way that central policy.
We have had an interesting debate. I have had an interesting debate going on behind me between my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Cormack. I know that they earnestly believe in the importance of the international student sector. I share that belief. It is a tribute to our education system and the talent of individual students who come here that we benefit enormously through our university sector. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby gave examples of outstanding academics who have benefited the world of knowledge and the world of medicine by their presence here in this country. They serve as exemplars of what our academic world is able to achieve. She has given me considerable detail which I am sure she will make available to other noble Lords should they wish to see it.
I turn to the Bill and to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my own government amendments. In relation to tenancies, the Bill disqualifies individuals from renting property if they do not have leave to be here. Students will be able to evidence their immigration status simply by showing their biometric residence permits or visas to potential landlords. That is a simple and straightforward check. The Government have nonetheless given this issue further thought. As a result of our debates at Second Reading and in Committee, and as a result of meetings we have had outside this House, we have tabled amendments exempting student accommodation which is owned or managed by a higher education institution, all halls of residence, and any arrangement where the student has been nominated for the accommodation by their educational institution. I just want to emphasise that while the word “nominate” is something that those of us who have political lives associate with nomination papers and so on, nominating is just the naming of an individual as being a student at a higher education institution. That is all it is. It does not necessarily involve the university itself in any contract with the landlord or any renting arrangements that the student may be entering into. It is a form of vouching for the genuineness of the student’s immigration status. That is all. I hope that I have been able to express that in the plain terms that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked for. I say further, and this is important too, that it applies to undergraduates— I think that would be understood—and also to postgraduates and to those completing their doctoral theses, so that all those who this House would consider to be students in the broadest definition of the term are included within this embrace.
The noble Lord raised three points that he wanted me to deal with. The first was the business of whether this extended to graduates. I have confirmed that that is indeed the case. Secondly, he asked whether this genuinely exempts the landlord. Yes, indeed; as long as he is satisfied by the nomination, then he has no need to conduct any further checks. If I may say so, this is rather analogous to the position of a person in a tied cottage. It has nothing to do with this part of the Bill but it is an interesting analogy in the sense that the person being employed can be vouched for and the landlord will have done the check on their employment in exactly the same way as the university will have done one on the engagement of the individual with the university itself. There is no contractual obligation on the university in respect of the tenancy that the individual student may be entering into. It is important to emphasise that as well. There is engagement, of course, but there is no contractual obligation.
Where a landlord wishes to rent to a student and does not want to check their immigration status documents, for whatever reason, they may make inquiries with the student’s educational institution and obtain this nomination. Nomination will be simply a confirmation of the student’s status, something that educational institutions already have to provide to students in order to prove exemption from the council tax. A suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Manzoor led us to explore this possibility. The term “nominate” is a broad exemption and it will allow higher education institutions to confirm that the student is exempt without being prescriptive about the form that this should take.
These government amendments will mean that landlords need not conduct an immigration status check as the educational institution will already have done so. The amendment removes the large majority of students from the scope of the landlords scheme. I also reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to make provision within the code of practice to allow landlords to agree a tenancy in principle with the students who have not yet arrived in the UK, allowing them to undertake a check of relevant documentation immediately before the student takes up occupation. In other words, it is possible for these arrangements to be made in advance of the student actually taking up their place at the university. A number of noble Lords had expressed concern on that point.
Perhaps I may park the landlord provisions and go on to talk about the health service surcharge—
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
Before the noble Lord does that, might I clarify whether what he is saying is in response to the point I made about a potential tenant entering into a conditional arrangement with a landlord? Is it legal and proper for the landlord to enter into that arrangement even though at that point, because of the time involved and so on, the potential tenant has not actually got their visa?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, absolutely: that is the case. It is up to the landlord to decide whether they want to enter into a conditional arrangement. In university towns this is a frequent enough experience, is it not? They can check the nomination, which may say that the person has a conditional place at the university. That can be checked immediately the undergraduate or postgraduate arrives to take up the accommodation. We do not want to make this difficult. We want to make universities feel that this will help them as well as the students at their university.
I turn to the health surcharge—there are a number of landlord issues I might come back to but I want to try to deal with this as far as I can in order. I urge noble Lords to bear in mind that international students cost the NHS around £430 million a year and more than £700 a head. The NHS has limited funding and cannot sustain this if it is unsupported by those who use that service. The surcharge for students is just £150 a year. It is a very good deal. It is a fraction of the true cost to the NHS and just 1% of the cost of studying in the UK. There is no reason to believe that the surcharge will deter students from coming to the UK because it is set well below the price students pay for health insurance in our competitor countries.
I accept that international students contribute significantly to our economy, but such contributions do not exempt students from health charges in our competitor countries and there is no reason why they should do so here. Noble Lords will understand our reasoning in that regard. The NHS provides quality care to international students and their dependants for a wide range of health issues. I will speak more on the NHS services that international students have used, if noble Lords wish.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I think the whole House recognises that £150 is a not unreasonable figure. However, there is a very specific and limited case for those in post-doctoral or postgraduate positions who bring their dependants with them. At that point the continuation of the charge, especially if somebody has taken work that enables them to pay national insurance and taxation, begins to feel much more like a burden than like a benefit. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Indeed. My noble friend and I have discussed this in meetings. I take the point. It was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as well. I think he and other noble Lords understood that there will be secondary legislation that will define these issues. I am aware of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this respect. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made the same point about the length of time that some individuals may pay the surcharge. I do not consider this a serious problem but I commit to considering it carefully before bringing forward the affirmative resolution order.
A number of other mattes were raised. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby asked about changes to work-study visas. We do not have any figures on this but she is quite right to point out that we have tried to facilitate this, just as through the graduate scheme we have tried to facilitate higher education and have worked with institutions.
She asked about slowness in the visa system. In fact, 93% of administrative reviews for overseas students—these applications are made overseas—are made within 28 days, so it is quite speedy. That is one reason we are looking to use the method of administrative review more generally in this respect.
I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, about the breadth of the accommodation amendment. Any undergraduate who chooses to use that facility by gaining a nomination from the university will get the accommodation that they need, and it is quite proper to take up a place in advance.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords about our general approach to working with universities. We have been working at ways to promote this country to students from overseas. It is something in which I believe, and I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that with the considerable sums now being put to one side through the Budget to promote our education facilities to overseas students we have a good offer in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was very keen that the Government should demonstrate unity of purpose on this issue. I hope I have said nothing that discourages him from believing that we have a unity of purpose on this issue. I very much appreciate the work that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, does, in particular with the college in south London. He and I have had meetings on it. I know he had a meeting with officials last week, trying to reconcile them to the arrangements. This is not an easy area but we want to work with this sector.
I did not have the benefit of a university education. I went to work at 17 and it has taught me that there are huge benefits in university education. I believe in it passionately. I do not want to see other people denied the opportunities that our university sector provides. I hope that I have demonstrated my wish to engage with the sector and give it confidence that there should be no reason why a properly constructed immigration policy would be incompatible with our policy objective of encouraging the brightest and the best to come and study at our excellent universities. I hope, in the light of these points, that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who in Committee and on Report supported the amendments put down in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, whose absence today is entirely due to being in Athens on the business of the House.
I have drawn enormous comfort and support from the way in which each of the debates we have held has been lengthy, thoughtful and devoted entirely to the matter in hand. I contrast that with the fact that the other place, when it took this legislation, never actually got around to talking about students or higher education at all because they were so busy chasing Romanians and Bulgarians around the Chamber. That is perhaps a tribute to the way in which your Lordships’ House conducts its business. We do not miss out really important issues like that of students.
I have a brief comment—or perhaps two—on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. He raised the question of whether universities were aware and made enough of the fact that foreign students help them subsidise domestic students. All I can tell him is that if he talks to anyone in the higher education sector, of course they all know that perfectly well. They know that a number of courses, particularly STEM courses, would simply not be maintainable without overseas student enrolment. However, the noble Lord will recognise that if we are trying to recruit overseas students, this is not a major sales point. It is not terribly wise to go around the world saying, “You may think your fees are a bit on the high side—but don’t worry, they are going to support British students”. I hope he will understand that one has to treat that with a certain amount of care.
Of course, the noble Lord is right about the exchange rate having extreme importance. I can only offer him the advice that Miss Prism offers Cecily in “The Importance of Being Earnest”:
“The chapter on the Fall of the Rupee you may omit. It is somewhat too sensational”.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 31 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Additionally, it is important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. We propose to add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM), which is also known as Ansar Jerusalem; Al Murabitun; and Ansar Al Sharia-Tunisia (AAS-T) to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 14th proscription order under that Act.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism, as defined by that Act. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors. These are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom and to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite support for or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. Additionally, it is an offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making process by the Cross-Whitehall Proscription Review Group. Decisions to proscribe are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ABM, Al Murabitun and AAS-T are currently concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of their activities. ABM is an al-Qaeda-inspired militant Islamist group based in the northern Sinai region of Egypt. The group is said to recruit within Egypt and abroad and aims to create an Egyptian state ruled by Sharia law. ABM is assessed to be responsible for a number of attacks on security forces in Egypt since 2011. The attacks appear to have increased since the overthrow of the Morsi government in July 2013. The group’s reach goes beyond the Sinai, with the group claiming responsibility for a number of attacks in Cairo and cross-border attacks against Israel. ABM has undertaken attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and surface-to-air missiles. Examples of attacks for which the group has claimed responsibility include: in September 2013 an attack on the Egyptian Interior Minister in which a UK national was seriously injured; an attack on a police compound in Mansoura on 24 December 2013, killing at least 16 people, including 14 police officers; and an attack on a tourist bus in which three South Koreans and their Egyptian driver died on 16 January 2014.
Al Murabitun resulted from a merger of two al-Qaeda in the Maghreb—AQ-M—splinter groups that are active in Mali and Algeria, the Movement for the Unity and Jihad in West Africa—MUJWA—and Mokhtar Belmokhtar’s group, the Al-Mulathamine Battalion, which included the commando element “Those Who Sign in Blood”. The merger was announced in a public statement in August 2013. Al Murabitun aspires to unite Muslims from the Nile to the Atlantic and has affirmed its loyalty to the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and the emir of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar. Al Murabitun’s first statement threatened France and its allies in the region and called on Muslims to target French interests everywhere. Belmokhtar has announced that he will not continue to lead the group in order to allow a new generation of jihadist leaders to come to the fore. Reports indicate that the new commander has fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the international intervention in Afghanistan.
Although the group has not claimed responsibility for any terrorist attacks since the merger, both precursor groups have participated in a number of terrorist attacks and kidnapping for ransom during the past 13 months. Belmokhtar’s group was responsible for the attack against the In Amenas gas facility in January 2013 that resulted in the death of more than 30 people including Britons. In May 2013 the two groups targeted a military barracks in Agadez, Niger and a uranium mine in Arlit which supplies French nuclear reactors. The suicide attack in Agadez resulted in the deaths of at least 20 people.
Despite previously separating themselves from AQ-M, citing leadership issues and the desire to expand their control, both precursor groups continued to co-operate and fight alongside AQ-M fighters in Mali and other regions of West Africa. This activity has continued since the merger.
The Sahel region continues to see high threats of kidnap and terrorist attacks. Hostages are currently held in the Sahel and surrounding regions, which includes Algeria, Cameroon, Libya and Nigeria. The Canadians designated Belmokhtar’s group in November 2013 and the US designated it in December 2013, specifying Al Murabitun as an alias.
Ansar Al Sharia-Tunisia—AAS-T—is a radical Islamist group founded in April 2011. The group aims to establish Sharia law in Tunisia and eliminate western influence. Between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals may be attracted to rallies organised by the movement. The group is ideologically aligned to al-Qaeda—AQ—and has links to al-Qaeda affiliated groups. It is reported that the group announced its loyalty to AQ-M in September 2013.
AAS-T’s leader, Seif Allah Ibn Hussein, also known as Abu Ayadh al-Tunisi, is a former AQ veteran combatant in Afghanistan. He has been hiding following the issue of a warrant for his arrest relating to an allegation of inciting the attack on the US embassy in Tunis that killed four people in September 2012.
Salafists believed to have links with AAS-T are assessed to be responsible for the attacks in October 2011 on a television station and, in June 2012, an attack on an art exhibit. AAS-T is assessed to be responsible for the attacks on the US embassy and the American school in Tunis in September 2012. The Tunisian Government believe that AAS-T was responsible for the assassination of two coalition assembly members: Chokri Belaid in February 2013 and Mohamed Brahmi in July 2013.
Additionally, elements of the group are believed to have been involved in the attempted suicide attack, in October 2013, at a hotel in a tourist resort in Sousse where a significant number of British tourists were staying. More than 400,000 British tourists visited Tunisia last year. The Tunisian Government listed AAS-T as a terrorist group in 2013 and the US did so in January 2014.
Subject to the agreement of this House and the House of Commons, this proscription will come into force on Friday 4 April.
In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al Murabitun and Ansar Al Sharia-Tunisia to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this is a serious issue. The order that the Minister has moved was agreed in the House of Commons yesterday and, as he has said, if it is agreed by this House today it will come into effect tomorrow. I thank him for the letter that he sent to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon on 31 March, which set out the case for the proscription of the three groups named by the Minister, and he has of course repeated that case in moving the order today. This is an issue of national security, and we are happy to accept the Government’s assurances on the basis that all three groups seem to have been involved in terrorism at the highest end of seriousness, including some directed at our citizens and allies.
There are, however, two points that I wish to raise about the issue of proscription, though not specifically about the three groups in question; as I indicated, we are happy to accept and agree the order. I am sure that the two issues will not come entirely as a surprise to the Minister. As I understand it from what was said in the Commons yesterday, there are apparently 52 international and 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations that are already proscribed, and I gather that between 2001 and the end of March last year 32 people have been charged with proscription-related offences as a primary offence in Great Britain and 16 have been convicted, so there are a number of organisations on the list.
I am sure that the Minister will not be too surprised if I say that it appears that one organisation is not yet on the list: Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is of course the one that the Prime Minister said when he was leader of the Opposition that he thought ought to be banned. It is not clear why after all this time that organisation has not been proscribed if apparently, in the Prime Minister’s view, the case was so clear-cut a number of years ago when he announced his personal view of what he would do. I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on that, purely in the sense of whether this organisation is likely to be banned or not. What are the Government doing on this at the moment? Have they come to the conclusion that it does not require to be banned, or is it after all these years an issue that they are still considering? They seem to be taking a remarkably long time to come to a conclusion.
The other issue that I would like to raise, and it is the final one that I want to talk about, is the issue of de-proscription. This was raised in the House of Commons yesterday but I want to put a question about it to the Minister. Obviously we have a procedure for, quite rightly, putting organisations that are threats to national security on the list so that action can be taken. I have referred already to the figures that the Minister in the House of Commons gave about the number of organisations currently proscribed. My question about the issue of de-proscription is on the understanding that the only group that has ever been de-proscribed obtained that through judicial review. It is of interest to raise this issue because, according to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Home Office was at one point considering an annual review of the proscribed list to see which groups still met the criteria.
That independent reviewer suggests—I do not know whether it is true—that there is no current evidence of terrorist involvement, even in this century, for some proscribed organisations. According to the independent reviewer’s website, last summer the Home Office had compiled a list of up to 14 groups that no longer met the criteria for proscription and the independent reviewer has been calling for the annual review of proscribed groups to which I have referred and which it was claimed that the Home Office was at one point considering.
In conclusion, since it appears that the Home Office now wishes to go down a different road for de-proscription for individuals or organisations, why is it not in favour of at least a regular review of the proscribed groups to see if they still meet the criteria that necessitate their being on the proscribed list in the light of an apparent view—whether right or wrong—of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that a number of organisations on that list no longer meet the criteria for remaining on it?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support for this order. I will do my best to answer his questions. As he said, there was a lengthy debate yesterday in the House of Commons where my honourable friend James Brokenshire presented this order for approval by that House. The noble Lord asked first about Hizb ut-Tahrir. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been considered by the Home Secretary. The Government have significant concerns about it and we are continuing to monitor its activities very closely. Of course, individuals are still subject to general criminal law. We will seek to ensure that the group and groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country. We will not tolerate secretive meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer. We will ensure that civic organisations are made aware of this organisation and groups like it, the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business. I can comment no further on that organisation.
As the noble Lord will well know, de-proscription is by application. While we keep a watch—and it is quite proper that we do—on organisations about which we are concerned, it is up to organisations to apply for de-proscription. Under the current regime they can write to the Home Secretary and request that she considers that they should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations, and they should state the grounds under which they should be de-proscribed. The Home Secretary is required to make a decision on that application within 90 days. I hope the noble Lord will understand that there is a proper mechanism for dealing with de-proscription. However, it is not a proactive one. It is one made by application.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord will accept that if you are not meant to be a member of that organisation at the time you apply it is a bit of risk applying for it to be de-proscribed—by definition you are almost admitting to be associated with the organisation that you are not allowed to be associated with.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is the procedure, my Lords. That is the consideration that the Home Secretary makes. I think the noble Lord will understand that you do not get on the proscribed list without the Government having real concerns about the aims and objectives of the organisation. I ask the noble Lord to accept that assurance.
Lord Rosser
I hope that the Minister would accept that my comments have been prompted to some extent by what the independent reviewer has claimed. I do not know whether that is true or not, but a number of organisations on the list would apparently no longer meet the criteria. I am certainly not raising it in a flippant manner—this is an issue of national security. Frankly, however, if there are organisations there and the independent reviewer is questioning whether they still meet the criteria, the effectiveness of the list is surely a factor of the organisations on it being ones that should be on it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Well, I am satisfied with the arrangements. On the question of incrimination, I can reassure the noble Lord that, in fact, if a person makes an application for a group to be de-proscribed, Section 10 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that evidence submitted in relation to de-proscription application is not admissible in proceedings against an individual for an offence under that Act. I hope that reassures the noble Lord to some extent about the self-incrimination process of writing to the Home Secretary to apply for de-proscription.
Finally, proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned with terrorism. We are satisfied that the three groups about which we have been talking today meet that statutory test and it is appropriate in each case for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe the group. The proscription of ABM, Al Murabitun and AAS-T demonstrates our condemnation of the activities of these groups and our support for the efforts of members of the international community to tackle terrorism. On those grounds, I commend the order to the House.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(2) Where a person (“P”) is liable to be or has been removed from the United Kingdom under subsection (1), a member of P’s family who meets the following three conditions may also be removed from the United Kingdom under the authority of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, provided that the Secretary of State or immigration officer has given the family member written notice of the intention to remove him or her.
(2A) The first condition is that the family member is—
(a) P’s partner,(b) P’s child, or a child living in the same household as P in circumstances where P has care of the child,(c) in a case where P is a child, P’s parent, or(d) an adult dependent relative of P.(2B) The second condition is that—
(a) in a case where the family member has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, that leave was granted on the basis of his or her family life with P;(b) in a case where the family member does not have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or immigration officer the family member—(i) would not, on making an application for such leave, be granted leave in his or her own right, but(ii) would be granted leave on the basis of his or her family life with P, if P had leave to enter or remain.(2C) The third condition is that the family member is neither a British citizen, nor is he or she entitled to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of an enforceable EU right or of any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
(2D) A notice given to a family member under subsection (2) invalidates any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom previously given to the family member.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, in Committee I gave a commitment to give consideration to amendments tabled by a number of noble Lords and to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarding the definition of family members and the regulation-making power in Clause 1, and to return to it on Report.
Amendment 1 removes the discretion that was previously set out in the regulation-making power as to whether we notify family members of removal. We previously stated our intention that family members will always be given notice when they are to be removed but, in recognition of the arguments so eloquently made in Committee, we have now placed this firmly in the Bill.
We have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it was “inappropriate” to delegate the power to define a family member for the purpose of administrative removal within the regulations. We have therefore defined in Clause 1 those family members who might be removed because of their dependency on the principal.
The first condition of the definition sets out the relationship of the family member to the principal. I am grateful for the point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury during our previous debate on this issue that the definition of family member should be dependent on the principal’s leave to enter or remain, and this is what we have sought to achieve within the second condition. The third condition is that the family member is neither a British citizen nor a person entitled to be in the United Kingdom by virtue of an EU treaty right. As I have previously stated, our aim is to give new clarity to families so that they will know exactly who may be liable to removal.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee noted in Committee that the draft regulations contained a provision that the giving of notice to family members acted to invalidate any leave to enter or remain previously held, and asked why this was not included in the Bill itself. We have taken on board her concern and moved this provision out of the regulations and added it to Clause 1.
In Amendment 2 we have sought to reduce the power to make regulations about the removal of family members to matters such as time periods and the service of notice. Further to the DPRRC’s 24th report, published yesterday, we will make a further amendment at Third Reading to take out the reference to “in particular” from line 27 so that it will be completely clear that the scope of the regulations cannot extend beyond these two provisions. This limits them to procedural matters that should be subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Section 166 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Amendment 3 simply clarifies the definition of a child in this context as someone under the age of 18.
Other amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, concern the return of families and children to their country of origin. This Government have transformed the approach to returning families with children, in line with their commitment to end child detention for immigration purposes. I hope that I will be able to explain any further issues as we debate the amendments in this group. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I hope I will be forgiven for returning to a point that we discussed in Committee, on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has tabled a number of amendments that deal with the position of women and children. My noble friend referred to the undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee concerning the facilities at Heathrow. That is not the subject of a particular amendment, but I am aware of delays that have occurred in implementing the improvements at the short-term holding facilities, particularly at terminal 4, which are the worst in the whole airport.
In view of that fact, will my noble friend take this opportunity to give us an update on where we have got to? None of the facilities has any showers for the children and families who are detained in them. The shortage of accommodation is acute and the facilities have been thoroughly condemned by the independent monitoring board that deals with Heathrow. It would be helpful if the Minister, when he comes to reply, would give us an update on where we have got to on the improvement of those facilities.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the Bill gives legislative effect to our current policies on family returns by putting key elements of the new process into primary legislation. Noble Lords have spoken of the Government’s record and our policies towards children, and mentioned them in favourable terms. I think it is a shared opinion across this House that we take policies towards children seriously. I hope to demonstrate that we are doing that in the passage of this Bill.
Amendments 4 and 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would narrow the definition of a family return case. It is important that families where children are being looked after by someone other than the parents, such as an older sibling in some cases, a grandparent or another adult member of their extended family, are included in the family returns process so that their cases can be resolved together and so that they benefit from the intensive support provided by the new process. Under our definition of “family”, a parent must be living with their children to benefit from the family returns process. That is a reasonable definition. Other than in exceptional cases, where common sense would prevail, if a parent is living apart from the child they may be removed separately.
With regards to Amendment 5, and separating children from their parents, I assure noble Lords that we will always seek to ensure that families remain together during their return. I am sympathetic to the amendment, but there are exceptional cases. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, I think, to the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness in previous debates on the Bill. Splitting families would never be done for tactical reasons to achieve compliance. However, in exceptional circumstances, we may need to remove an adult family member separately, even during the 28-day grace period which Clause 2 will establish. This may be, for example, where there is a public protection concern or a risk to national security.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked what the criminality threshold is over which we might separate families. He wanted a stronger definition than perhaps my words just now have offered, but there can be no fixed threshold. Each case will be considered on its merits, based on an assessment of whether an adult poses a threat of offending that cannot be satisfactorily managed without removal. That is the only fair answer that I can give the noble Lord.
Amendment 8 seeks to ensure that children are detained only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. That is already, as noble Lords will know, government policy. Clause 5 will, in effect, ensure that detention is for the shortest possible time, while reflecting the operational reality that, in very exceptional circumstances, unaccompanied children may need to be held for short periods in transit to a port of departure or at the port awaiting departure. If we do not hold children safely while they are coming in and out of the UK unaccompanied, we increase the risk that they may fall prey to traffickers or, indeed, abscond.
Later this afternoon, we will be considering an amendment concerning children tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to which I have added my name. I mention this because it is important to consider our approach to children in the Bill in the round. That amendment will confirm that the important statutory duty towards children in immigration decisions applies to every matter in the Bill. It will of course apply to this part of the Bill, further underlining that when families and children are being returned, we must have regard to those children’s best interests.
I will address the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, whose help on this matter and on the Bill in general has been very positive.
Lord Judd
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he is saying and the way he is saying it. Will he re-emphasise his position on two points? First, is there an understanding within the Government that sometimes the emotional relationship between children and someone who may be in prison can be very strong indeed, and that that needs to be taken fully into account when dealing with the interests of the child? Secondly, will he confirm that he agrees with me—if I may put it that way—that what will always matter most is the ethos, the spirit and the way in which the policy is being operated by everyone in the operation, and that sometimes therefore it is terribly important to have clearly in the legislation the overriding objective, purpose and value so that these cannot be lost in the niceties and legalities of the various parts of the legislation? That is why some of us argue for a firm, clear statement in the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I would like to think that by our signing up to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, there is a clear expression of those objectives across the Bill as a whole, not just in one section. If the noble Lord doubts our commitment in this regard, he should look at the number of children now held in detention compared with in the past. That has been supported by all noble Lords. It is not something that the Government have done on their own; it has been done because this House and others who care for children and families have been prepared to act in the interests of children and families. Nobody has done more so than the noble Lord. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord with my statements, and I hope that the Government have reassured noble Lords by their deeds in this regard.
I was asked a number of questions by my noble friend. I do not want to take too long on the issue. My noble friend asked whether removal would not happen where dependency was broken when the former dependant was a victim of domestic violence, and asked me to confirm that proposed new subsection (2B)(b) covers this. I can give that assurance. Removal as a family member will not happen where the dependency is broken, because this scenario would not be covered by proposed new subsection (2B)(b). If there is a breakdown in a relationship such that a partnership no longer exists, the former dependant falls outside the definition in proposed new subsection (2A) and would be dealt with separately. I hope that that helps. I can give a fuller answer to my noble friend in correspondence, if she wishes.
My noble friend asked whether there was anything I could say about how proposed new subsection (2B)(b) will operate, and what the procedure is. In making a decision on whether to serve notice of removal on a family member, having already established the family relationship, an immigration officer or a case worker acting on behalf of the Secretary of State would next have to check whether the family members had leave on the basis of a family life with P. In cases where a family member has no leave, either because they never had any or because previous leave has expired, the immigration officer or case worker would look at whether they would be able to be granted leave in their own right because of their immigration status as an illegal entrant or overstayer, but they might be granted leave on the basis of their family life with P if P otherwise had leave.
My noble friend also asked how,
“where P has care of the child”,
differed from “parental responsibility”? I think that lies in the fact that we were talking about draft regulations when we were discussing the early draft. That is not necessarily the final wording. The wording prepared by parliamentary draftsmen is designed to include where children are being looked after by someone other than a parent, such as an older sibling, a grandparent or another adult family member. I think that my noble friend kindly answered her own question about “last resort”, so I shall not go into that.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I can confirm that family members will be given a minimum of 72 hours between receiving notice of removal and any enforced removal, as per current requirements as endorsed by the courts.
My noble friend Lord Avebury has asked me before about the facilities at Heathrow. Unfortunately, the plans for those have been delayed. He is quite right to draw attention to that. I responded to him in those terms. I remain committed to providing him and the House with information on that issue when those facilities are finalised, but at the moment, that is not the case, so I cannot advance our knowledge on that issue any further.
I think that I have covered most of the questions, although I worry that I may not have addressed the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I promise to read the record and come back to him on that.
I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I hope that I have been able to show how what he seeks to achieve is expressed in the Bill, so I hope that he will be prepared not to move his amendments and, meanwhile, I beg to move mine.
“( ) the time period during which a family member may be removed under subsection (2);( ) the service of a notice under subsection (2).”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has spoken with his considerable knowledge of the enforced removal process and of restraint techniques. It is fair to say that his criticism is not confined to what he thinks is going on at the moment but extends to what has gone on under previous Governments as well. I do not think that his comments are geared to a particular Government; I think that they are geared to what has been happening over a period of years.
We are aware of what the noble Lord has proposed about a code of practice, and I have to say that there seem to us to be some fairly strong arguments for seeking to have such a code, in view of some of the terrible difficulties and events that there have been and to which the noble Lord has referred. He has referred today to the redrafting of paragraph 5, as I understand it from the closing words of his speech.
We on these Benches have sympathy with the arguments that he is putting forward, which are clearly addressed to trying to resolve the significant difficulties that have arisen, and may well continue to arise, with the current process and techniques. We very much hope that we will hear a helpful response from the Minister to the quite powerful points that the noble Lord has just made.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I do not think that there is going to be any marked division in this House on this issue, to the extent that I think we are agreed that whatever is done in our name should be done in a civilised and proper fashion. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this issue to the House’s attention through Amendment 7, but perhaps I might start by repeating what I previously said in Committee. The provision in Schedule 1 to extend the use of force affects only those powers exercised by immigration officers. It does not make any change to the separate statutory powers of detainee custody officers and escorts, who are private contractors, to use reasonable force in the exercise of their particular functions.
As the noble Lord kindly mentioned, last week the Minister for Immigration and Security, my honourable friend James Brokenshire, and I had a very helpful and thoughtful meeting with the noble Lord where we discussed the proposals in his draft codes of practice for enforced removals and where I believe we agreed that there are a number of areas of common ground where the Home Office is making improvements. I think the noble Lord will know that my honourable friend Mr Brokenshire and I share an interest in this matter. He kindly mentioned my trip on a removals flight, which I found extremely interesting. I feel much better informed through having made that journey.
The noble Lord has proposed in the draft code of practice on use of restraint that any use of force must be justifiable, proportionate, accountable, necessary, safe and supportive and must be applied for only the minimum period necessary to achieve the lawful objective. Published enforcement instructions and guidance explain that the use of force must be proportionate, lawful and necessary in the particular circumstances, and also set out that force should be used for the shortest possible period, be the minimum needed, be used only when all other avenues of securing co-operation have been exhausted and should be de-escalated as soon as possible. Whether that use of force was reasonable must be justified by individual officers on a case-by-case basis. I can assure noble Lords that only those immigration officers who are fully trained and accredited may use force. Arrest training is currently provided by the College of Policing, and training on the use of force, including control and restraint techniques, is in line with ACPO standards.
If we were to accept this amendment, although it would maintain the status quo, there are half a dozen coercive powers which sit in the 2004 and 2007 immigration Acts, where there is no specific reference to the use of reasonable force. Although the use of force is currently implied in these arrest and entry powers, it is our intention that this should be set out explicitly in statute to ensure that there is greater transparency. I previously gave noble Lords the example of an immigration officer trying to safely arrest a person for the specific offence of assaulting him or her, under Section 23 of the UK Borders Act 2007, where it is not expressly stated in the legislation that an immigration officer can use reasonable force to restrain that person in doing so. The extension of the power for immigration officers to use reasonable force beyond that contained in the 1971 and 1999 immigration Acts will ensure that existing powers can be operated effectively and are in step with other law enforcement bodies’ powers and that current enforcement practices are not at risk of legal challenge on the grounds that the ability to use force is not explicitly set out in statute.
The noble Lord asked whether the Home Office monitored the restraint techniques used at Colnbrook removal centre in 2004, which led to the tragic death of a 16 year-old. I cannot answer that question at the Dispatch Box but will write to him and copy the letter to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
With the assurance that we in the Home Office very much value the noble Lord’s input in this area, which reinforces our interest in making sure that these jobs are done in a proper fashion, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will fell able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his considered reply and, indeed, for the meetings we have had. I admit that I was seeking an opportunity to raise this issue because it has gone on for too long. The procedures being exercised in our name have gone unchecked and unsupervised in a way that has allowed bad procedures to be passed from one contracted company to another contracted company over the years, which really ought to have been checked.
I like to think that the exercise that the Minister has outlined means that this will at last be put to an end. The people who have actually been served worst by this are Ministers, who have been put into embarrassing positions which they really should not have been. I am happy to withdraw the amendment because I think that the point has been made fully, and I am grateful to the Minister for doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some extremely powerful speeches in today's debate, especially on the concerns about overlong detention. Some of the individual cases that we have heard about strike the humanity of all noble Lords—to take a phrase from my noble friend Lord Judd. We certainly understand the reasons for the amendment and agree that it should always be the objective to reduce the length of time that any individual is in detention. I would hope that in the vast majority of cases it is possible to deal quickly with the process for individuals or find alternatives to detention. As we have heard, that is in the interests of the individuals detained—we have heard that there are 30,000 detainees each year—and in the interests of the taxpayer.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Lister, led to a greater concern about the regime of detention centres and the way in which rules are enforced. We agree that immigration rules must always be enforced, but the responsibility of government is to ensure that all detainees are treated humanely, with high standards and safeguards in place. As this amendment seeks to draw attention to, the process of administrating and assessing claims or arranging deportation should be undertaken as quickly and as fairly as possible.
Long delays and long periods of detention bring with them other problems. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the research undertaken by Women for Refugee Women which illustrates concerns about access to healthcare and support for physical and mental health. Only this week, we heard the extremely sad and distressing account of a woman of 40 who died at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. I was pleased that yesterday the Minister announced an investigation and review into that sad and tragic death.
Will the Minister also confirm that there will be a full investigation into the reports of sexual abuse of vulnerable women at Yarl’s Wood by Serco employees? What action has been taken as a result of the report of the inspector who said that abused and trafficked women are being held at Yarl’s Wood? The chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place said yesterday that Serco has confirmed to him that in the past few years seven employees had been dismissed for inappropriate behaviour. The Minister will also be aware that there are ongoing police investigations and criminal proceedings, although Nick Hardwick, in his most recent inspection report, said that—I paraphrase—good progress was being made but more needs to be done. There are real concerns that have been illustrated across the House today.
However, that is not the amendment before us today. This is specifically about the length of time an individual can be held, and we heard examples of overlong detention from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. My concern about the amendment is that it is slightly clumsily worded and does not necessarily achieve what it sets out to do. It has an arbitrary time limit of 60 days. Within that, there is no risk assessment of the issues of whether or not someone is likely to abscond or any assessment of the reasons for the delay.
More importantly, and this gives us the most concern, foreign criminals who have completed their sentences may be detained while they await deportation. That may take a little longer than 60 days to resolve—to get all the paperwork in place, ensure that they are treated properly and make an assessment of where they can be deported to. We would then be faced with the prospect of releasing those who do not have a legal right to be in the UK and who have become convicted offenders who have received a custodial sentence. That could lead to complications in the paperwork or the complex nature of the deportation. If the amendment were passed today as it stands, we could have a difficulty with former offenders who have been held in detention prior to deportation.
Unless I have missed something, there is no process in the amendment to allow for any extension in any circumstances, whether for a genuine risk of absconding or because of deportation for previous criminal offences. There is no qualification at all in the amendment as it stands. Having said that, I think it was my noble friend Lord Judd who used a phrase—which is well worth this House returning to on a number of occasions—about the humanity and the principle of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the amendment being a “stimulus”, because the Government should be aiming to achieve far shorter detention periods.
I fully appreciate that this amendment could focus the Government’s attention on being far more efficient in dealing with cases but there is a risk here, as I have outlined, and I am not convinced that the Government would necessarily take note in that way. I would like to hear some assurances from the Minister that action will be taken to deal with any abuses of the rules and regime in any detention centre. I hope that he will not dismiss the objectives of the amendment before us today because, whatever flaws there may be in the detail, this amendment raises issues of serious concern across your Lordships’ House, as he has heard, that have to be addressed. Although we cannot support this amendment as it stands, we would hope for a very sympathetic and helpful response from the Minister.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that contribution. I think she recognises the burdens on the Government in dealing with this matter. I also say to her that, clearly, if there is evidence of wrong-doing at a detention centre, it will be investigated. However, I would like to write to the noble Baroness in more detail on that because I cannot address from the Dispatch Box the particular issues that she raises.
However, as to the general principle, we have had a really good debate today on detention. The truth of the matter is that no Government want to detain people more than they have to. I think the figure was quoted of £36,000 per annum for each detainee, which is enough incentive for any Government, not just on humanitarian grounds but on hard-nosed business terms. We do not want people detained, but these are difficult issues and we have vested, quite rightly in my view, the determination of these matters in the courts. It is the courts that determine the period of detention. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has talked about the legal background to these issues, this is a case where that balance between the Executive and the court system determines outcomes.
I will now try to address the issues in the amendment, which my noble friend Lady Williams characteristically presented with the passion that has driven her through a most distinguished political career. Amendment 9 would require the release of any individual in immigration detention subject to a removal decision after 60 days’ detention, no matter how imminent their removal was. Removal might be due after 62, 64 or 70 days, but 60 days would be the effective limit. There is an absconding risk in that, which I think noble Lords will recognise. Having a finite limit would give people an incentive not to co-operate with removal. Much of what we have been discussing here has been discussed in very high-minded terms, but there are people in detention who will do everything that they can to ensure that they are not removed. If an individual refused to co-operate with arrangements for their removal—for example, in obtaining a travel document, which requires the co-operation of the detainee—they would be able to benefit from their non-compliance when making a bail application after 60 days of detention, even if the sole reason for their detention and for their not being removed was their lack of compliance. Even if a limit were to be imposed, 60 days is not the right limit, and I hope I can convince noble Lords of that. The Government’s view is that it is not appropriate to legislate to set a time limit for immigration detention.
“Report by Chief Inspector on administrative review
(1) Before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which section 15 comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission from the Chief Inspector a report that addresses the following matters—
(a) the effectiveness of administrative review in identifying case working errors;(b) the effectiveness of administrative review in correcting case working errors;(c) the independence of persons conducting administrative review (in terms of their separation from the original decision-maker).(2) On completion of the report, the Chief Inspector must send it to the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (2).
(4) In this section—
“administrative review” means review conducted under the immigration rules;
“case working error” has the meaning given in the immigration rules;
the “Chief Inspector” means the Chief Inspector established under section 48 of the UK Borders Act 2007;
“immigration rules” has the same meaning as in the Immigration Act 1971.”
Metropolitan Police
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to restore the reputation of the Metropolitan Police, having regard to recent reports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the majority of police officers serving in London and elsewhere do their jobs well, serving their communities with dedication and professionalism. We must build on this. We have established the College of Policing, which has the remit to set standards and promote good practice. Ensuring that the police maintain the highest levels of integrity is a core function of the college and it will be shortly publishing the first ever code of ethics for the police.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is it not the case that undercover police operations play a vital part in the fight against terrorism and serious crime? Is it therefore not important that the unhappy and unfortunate events of past years should be put aside as soon as possible—having regard, of course, to due process—so that brave men and women are not discouraged from volunteering for this dangerous work?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not quite take that position. We are facing a grave crisis of confidence and it is important that, whatever the value of these operations, we learn from the mistakes of the past. Certainly we need to investigate the criminal activity that may have led to them occurring. It also makes it more important that such operations are properly authorised and supervised. The Government have already put in place improved arrangements for the authorisation of undercover work, including a requirement to notify deployments to the independent surveillance commissioners. In addition, HMIC is reviewing all law enforcement undercover units and will report at the end of May.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to declare my interest in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the reputation of the Metropolitan Police. It was my interest and my request to the Home Secretary to look into corruption within the Metropolitan Police surrounding the investigation of the murder of my son in 1993 that prompted the paper review by Mark Ellison QC. Does the Minister agree that the Metropolitan Police needs urgently to clear up those elements that brought it into disrepute in the first place in order that it can concentrate on fighting crime, upholding the law and regaining the trust of the British public, especially the black community?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Those noble Lords who were here on 6 March to hear the repetition of the Statement that the Home Secretary had made to the House of Commons earlier that day will have attended a most poignant occasion. The noble Baroness was in her place to hear what had happened, which was indeed shocking. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, policing stood damaged by the revelations in Mark Ellison’s review. She has made it clear that she is determined that all that can be done to find out what happened will be done. I know that that determination is shared by those currently in charge of the Metropolitan Police and by those conducting reviews and investigations. I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness of the sincerity of this Government in tackling what lay behind the tragic period leading up to and after her son’s death.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
Does the Minister share my disappointment about the way the police have been dealing recently with domestic violence? After all the work that has been carried out, what can be done to bring those forces that are clearly not meeting the needs of women up to the level of excellence of those forces that are?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is another area on which we have received a shocking report, and the Home Secretary commented on it this morning. Those noble Lords who listened to the “Today” programme will have heard a woman called Kimberley talk about her experience of the investigation made into her complaints. It is not good and the Home Secretary is determined to tackle this scourge. As she said this morning, she expects chief constables to respond to the report, and I would say that they owe it to the victims of these crimes to do so.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, many noble Lords will recall the high-profile visit made by the Metropolitan Police to the right honourable Damian Green MP before he became the Minister for Policing, but I do not suspect that many will recall the last high-profile visit made by the Minister for Policing to the Metropolitan Police in support of the excellent work done by the overwhelming majority of police officers every day to keep us safe in London. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us when such a visit was last made and why we have not heard about it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and other senior officers meet the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing on a regular basis. The last public engagement was the launch of the trial of body-worn video equipment that took place late last year and which was also attended by the Mayor of London. Contact between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police is on an everyday basis because it is such an important link for us. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by my earlier comments in answering this Question. We recognise the diligence with which the majority of police officers perform their duties on behalf of the public.
Lord Imbert (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may preface my question with a reference to the Home Secretary’s Statement to Parliament made on 6 March on the Ellison report of the inept investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and related matters such as the inappropriate use of undercover police officers. She said:
“Stephen Lawrence was murdered more than 20 years ago and it is deplorable that his family have had to wait so many years for the truth to emerge”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/14; col. 1064.]
I agree entirely with the Home Secretary’s view on the intolerable delay following the first highly unsatisfactory investigation into the murder of that young man.
The Metropolitan Police and policing generally have indeed had their reputations severely damaged by this and other incidents and revelations, but without trying to defend the indefensible, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would acknowledge that the relatively new captain and vice-captain of the Metropolitan Police Service are men of experience, determination and integrity and that, together with the many honest, brave and commendable police officers, they must be given the opportunity to redress the wrongs that have been revealed. I say “brave” officers because two were killed on duty last year and no fewer than 4,890 officers, both male and female, were injured and needed medical attention.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it might help the noble Lord if I just say that I have made it quite clear that we recognise the sense of duty with which our police officers undertake their tasks, and indeed our confidence in the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the content and tone of his answers. The further revelations published in the Independent newspaper today of a secret investigation into persistent corrupt networks within the Metropolitan Police are really beyond shocking. I am grateful to the Minister for his answers today, but can he tell us what action the Government will be taking in regard to these allegations as well?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think the noble Baroness is referring to Operation Zloty and the discovery that some of the material that we were hoping to be able to use to investigate further may have been destroyed. There is a determination among everyone who is currently engaged in this matter to get to the bottom of it and to get to the truth. I am confident that we will achieve that. It may take time and there may be obstacles in our path but we are determined that the truth should be known. Indeed, by finding the truth, we will also help the police themselves regain that confidence that they should surely have about the way that they protect us.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 19, Schedule 3, Clauses 20 to 51, Schedule 4, Clauses 52 and 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 58, Schedule 6, Clauses 59 to 62, Schedule 7, Clauses 63 to 65, Schedule 8, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 9, Clauses 71 to 74.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 24 March
Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 32nd and 35th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the order makes provision for the introduction of a mandatory licensing condition banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT.
The Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended the Licensing Act 2003 to confer a power on the Secretary of State to specify further mandatory licensing conditions relating to the sale and supply of alcohol. Sections 19A and 73B of the Licensing Act allow for such conditions where she considers it appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The order would apply to all licensed premises in England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland are subject to different legislation.
The Government are committed to reducing alcohol-related harms. We have taken a decision to ban the sale of alcohol below the permitted price—that is, the cost of duty and VAT. That fulfils a commitment in the coalition agreement. It will ensure that the worst cases of cheap alcohol are banned from sale. The ban will prevent anyone from selling alcohol at heavily discounted prices. A can of average-strength lager will now cost no less than 40p, and a standard bottle of vodka no less than £8.89. The ban aims to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and its associated impact on alcohol-related crime and health harms.
It is estimated that overall alcohol consumption will fall by 10.5 million units in the first year alone, resulting in 900 fewer crimes and 100 fewer hospital admissions. After 10 years, there will be 500 fewer hospital admissions and 14 lives will be saved each year. It is vital that we reduce alcohol-related harm, which it is estimated costs society £21 billion per year, £11 billion of that being alcohol-related crime. In nearly half of all violent incidents the victim believed the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. The most common type of anti-social behaviour experienced or witnessed—by one in 10 people—was drink-related. This measure will ensure that we take a step towards a much needed reduction in the £21 billion bill that this country faces as a result of alcohol.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad—who is not in his place this evening—and the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing the order to the attention of the House. The committee has reviewed the order and has made some important observations about the evidence on which we rely to demonstrate the benefits that the order will bring.
I will comment on the committee’s concerns that the evidence is highly speculative. The benefits have been assessed using the University of Sheffield’s School of Health and Related Research model, which is accepted as the best available model for estimating benefits of this policy. The modelling was carried out by researchers based at the university, who are independent of government and have qualifications and significant experience in the fields of health economics, health modelling, systems modelling and decision modelling. The modelling from the University of Sheffield estimates that this policy is worth £3.6 million per year in crime reduction benefits in England alone. That figure was laid before Parliament in the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum.
The health benefits have also been considered, and again, those have been laid before Parliament. The Explanatory Memorandum notes an estimated benefit to the public sector in England alone of £1.15 million per year on average over the first 10 years. The impact assessment estimates the wider health benefits to society, as well as to the public sector, to be £5.3 million per year. While the reduction in average consumption is modest, this policy will impact the most on hazardous and harmful drinkers. We know that there is a direct link between the price of alcohol and the quantity consumed by the heaviest drinkers, and that they tend to favour the cheapest alcohol. We also know that hazardous and harmful drinkers generate the biggest costs for alcohol-related harm. This policy seeks to achieve 900 fewer crimes in the first year alone. The reduction in hospital admissions will go from 100 in year 1 to 500 in year 10.
Two consultations have been held on the Licensing Act and on alcohol strategy, in 2010 and 2012-13 respectively. Following the results of the consultations, banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT was considered the most pragmatic way to tackle the worst examples of cheap alcohol. I hope that the House will agree with the Government that the introduction of the ban is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will no doubt be relieved to hear that I will not ask as many questions as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I think that we have perfect symmetry here because I wish to ask my noble friend why he is not going further today and why minimum unit pricing appears to be only half on the table.
The Government’s response to the consultation acknowledged that there might be unintended consequences of minimum unit pricing. This nostrum seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent. What process is now involved? We have this form of pricing, which clearly is half a loaf, but what is the Home Office doing in terms of further research? We have robust Canadian research, which many of us have seen over the past few months. I have the relevant brief in front of me. It states:
“All 10 Canadian provinces have some form of minimum alcohol pricing applied to liquor store and/or bar and restaurant sales … The Centre for Addictions Research of BC at the University of Victoria has collaborated with five other research agencies in Canada, USA and the UK to evaluate minimum pricing impacts on health and safety. Six studies have been conducted which demonstrate impacts of increased minimum prices on level of consumption and alcohol-related harms including deaths, hospital admissions and crimes. The results support the predictions of the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model and suggest that estimated benefits are larger than the model predictions”.
It is interesting that all the Canadian evidence seems to imply that the Sheffield model is rather conservative in its estimate of the health and social benefits arising from minimum unit pricing.
It is interesting that the Government seem to have parked this matter. I very much hope that the Minister will describe what next steps will be taken to introduce something rather more robust than what we have before us today. How on earth will officials in the Home Office assess what the unintended consequences will be? It seems to me a very circular argument. There may be unintended consequences but surely, if the evidence appears robust, the way to deal with that is to go forward on a trial or sunset-clause basis, see what the impact is and then make adjustments accordingly rather than just talking about unspecified unintended consequences. I take the point about the Scottish legal challenge but that is a timing issue in terms of seeing whether or not that will bear fruit for the complainants.
I very much hope that the Minister will give us a little bit more of a window on the future as opposed to this rather cautious approach that we have at present.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome this debate. It is good to explain to the House how this measure fits in with the Government’s alcohol strategy, and the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has given us a chance to debate it more fully than we might otherwise have done.
I think all noble Lords agree that, when used responsibly, alcohol can be a welcome part of social situations and community events. However, we all also accept that alcohol-related harm can affect many people in England and Wales, with victims in almost half of violent crimes believing the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. This is completely unacceptable. That is why the Government are committed to tackling this issue and why it is crucial that they use all the tools at their disposal to tackle the causes of this harm.
Through the alcohol strategy, the Government are promoting proportionate and targeted action to reduce the costs and problems caused to society by irresponsible and excessive drinking without disproportionately affecting responsible drinkers. This includes giving local areas more powers to address the alcohol-related problems that they face on a daily basis through the local alcohol action area scheme, which was launched last week. It offers support to local areas in cutting alcohol-related crime and disorder and reducing the damage caused to people’s health. As well as taking local action, we are acting nationally by challenging the alcohol industry to raise its game by supporting targeted local action, tackling the high strength or high volume products that can cause the most harm, promoting and displaying alcohol responsibly in shops, and improving education around drinking.
I think all noble Lords will agree that alcohol that is too cheap is a threat to achieving the aims of our strategy. We must do something about it without penalising those who choose to enjoy alcohol in a responsible manner and without threatening economic growth by creating red tape for business. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked about minimum unit pricing. I would like to be clear that this is not a debate about the benefits of minimum unit pricing. However, I accept that it is a matter of great interest and will therefore speak briefly on it. A wide range of evidence was provided throughout the consultation on minimum unit pricing. These have been considered alongside updated modelling by the University of Sheffield—I note the comments of my noble friend on this point—which suggests that a minimum unit price of 45p would have an impact on the consumption of hazardous and harmful drinkers, thereby resulting in a significant reduction in health harms and some reduction in crime-related harms.
A number of other issues were raised, including the potential impact of minimum unit pricing on the cost of living, the economic impact of the policy and increases in illicit alcohol sales. The Government acknowledge the need to give careful consideration to any possible unintended consequence of minimum unit pricing. Further, while we remain confident of the legal basis of the minimum unit pricing policy and will continue to support the Scottish Government in this area, the Government are also mindful of the need to watch the outcome of the legal challenge to the Scottish Government’s minimum pricing legislation. For these reasons, the Government have decided that the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol will remain a policy under consideration. I emphasise to the noble Baroness that it remains a policy under consideration. It has not been shelved but will not be taken forward at present. We will continue to monitor carefully the legal developments and the implementation of this policy in Scotland.
Perhaps I may answer my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s comments about minimum unit pricing in Canada. Two provinces are actively engaged in this: British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They have been doing so for some time but their policies are different in practice from the proposals that have been made on MUP in England and Wales. Social reference pricing in Canada involves minimum prices for types of drinks but not per-unit pricing. The context of sale is also different. Alcohol sales are more tightly controlled in those provinces than is the case currently in England and Wales.
My noble friend also asked about the process for considering MUP. The policy remains under consideration, which includes looking at the experience of the policy in other jurisdictions and the potential unintended consequences. Officials remain focused on keeping this under review and will continue to do so, but it would not be appropriate to set a timescale for when this will be completed.
Perhaps I may address some of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It is easier to do so in the general rather than the specific, and I hope she will allow me to write to her on some of the specific challenges she made on the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. However, I should say that the impact assessment was approved by the Regulatory Policy Committee in 2013 and given a green rating. The benefits of the model have been based on the University of Sheffield’s ScHARR model and experts in a number of different fields have fed into the policy. While the reduction is modest compared with the size of the problem, this policy will impact the most on hazardous and harmful drinkers. That is why it is designed in this way. We know that those particular drinkers generate the biggest costs for alcohol-related harm. What this policy seeks to achieve is 900 fewer crimes in the first year alone. The reduction in hospital admissions will go from 100 in year one to 500 in year 10.
The noble Baroness asked for the evidence base for the cost of alcohol. NHS costs are based on Department of Health estimates and alcohol-related crimes are based on Home Office estimates.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful that the noble Lord is making the effort to address the questions. I did not ask for the evidence on alcohol-related crime or hospital admissions; I asked for evidence of the change that this policy would bring about. That was what I was trying to understand—the evidence for the changes that the Government say this policy would bring about, not evidence of the problem.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps in the context of the figures that I am intending to provide to the noble Baroness when I reply in detail, I will seek to do so. However, I think that I have just said in my most recent contribution to the debate that this policy is focused principally on those people who hazard themselves and others through excessive drinking. The policy is targeted at those drinkers with very high consumption of alcohol and is considered to be a very effective policy in this area.
The noble Baroness asked why the Explanatory Memorandum contained one set of figures and the impact assessment a different set. The Explanatory Memorandum identifies the health benefits for the public sector, as is the practice. The impact assessment presents a wider picture and includes the gains in quality-adjusted life years, which also benefits patients. The costs in the impact assessment outlined in the table on page 2 relate only to the costs in the public sector, because that is normal practice for impact assessments.
In response to the question on multi-buys, full details on how this policy will work with regard to the type of offers that have been mentioned can be found in the guidance that has been published by the Home Office. In effect, it means that, aggregated together, the multi-buy still has to meet the requirements of this policy so that there is no suggestion that the multi-buy can break through the price that this measure implements. Businesses can continue to promote multi-buys if the total price is not beneath the permitted price.
I picked up one point that the noble Baroness made about page 2 of the impact assessment. She pointed out that a whole series of costs were not included in those figures. If she looks, those total figures excluded transitional costs—and I think she admitted that the costs listed immediately above the paragraph entitled,
“Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’”,
were transitional costs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did see that but I just wonder why the figures exclude transition costs. They are still a cost of implementation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It was considered that this was a reasonable way to evaluate the costs and benefits over time. Obviously, this is a continuing process, and amortising transition costs over time is not normal practice when one is doing an impact assessment. These costs are identified separately, which enables noble Lords to assess them properly.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s diligence in drawing the House’s attention to some of the matters relating to the analysis of the Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment. I will make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken receive a copy of the letter which I shall write to the noble Baroness setting out answers to the detailed questions that she has asked me, and I hope that I will be able to answer them to her satisfaction.
I believe that at heart this is at least a brick in the wall towards building an effective alcohol strategy. We must build on this to maintain the momentum of our commitment to reduce the harm caused by alcohol to consumers, to families, to the thousands of victims of alcohol-related crime, and to local communities and businesses, which are also vital to our economy. With that in mind, I commend the order to the House and I hope that it will prove acceptable to noble Lords.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to receiving his letter. I do not doubt the Government’s objectives in this regard at all; what I doubt is the effectiveness of the policies outlined. I will go through his letter in some detail but, when I look at the tables in the impact assessment, the impact does not seem to be at all significant. I was not necessarily making the case for a minimum unit price; I was just trying to understand the Government’s direction of travel on this, having gone from absolute certainty to a position where the policy is now under consideration and under review. There is a lot more work to be done on this. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but I look forward to receiving the Minister’s letter and perhaps to having further conversations with him on this issue.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014.
Relevant Document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Committee should consider the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014, I will also speak to the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Members of the Committee will remember that I came to the Grand Committee on 28 January to debate the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011, which provides powers to charge for visa, immigration and nationality applications and services. I am here today to debate the specific fees charged within the scope of that order. I am happy to take points on any of the fees proposals set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 February 2014, both those contained within these regulations and those in the Immigration and Nationality (Cost Recovery Fees) Regulations 2014, which have been laid separately before Parliament.
The fees proposals aim to strike the right balance between ensuring that our visa fees compare favourably with other countries and providing sufficient income to fund the system and improve services. We have sought to limit most increases to 4%. It might help noble Lords if I now describe those fees which have increased by more than 4%, which include the following. The first is the fee for dependants applying to extend their leave. We propose to remove the concession on fees for dependants applying at the same time as main applicants in the UK so that all dependants will pay the same as main applicants. This is consistent with the charging policy for applications made overseas and with separate dependant applications in the UK. Each individual within an application may receive an independent set of entitlements and will involve additional administration costs.
The second set of fees are those for UK premium services. The in-person and the priority service are optional services for people who wish to have their application expedited. The in-person fee is increased from £375 to £400 and the priority service fee from £275 to £300. We have also looked at the two-year and five-year visit visas, which will increase from £278 to £300 and from £511 to £544 respectively in order that the 10-year visit visa may be held at the current fee of £737. Long-term visit visas offer good value for money for frequent travellers, since a long-term visit visa fee is less than the cost of multiple short-term visit visas to cover the same period.
We are also introducing further concessions to encourage tourism and promote economic growth. There is to be a fee reduction for those who transit the UK without passing through border controls from £54 to £40. The fee for a visitor-in-transit visa and for those who need to enter the UK for a short period pending onward travel remains unchanged at £54.
I turn now to concessions for tier 2 applications where the applicant has a job on the shortage occupation list. It makes sense to encourage skilled overseas workers to fill these important roles until we can improve the skills and employability of the UK workforce. Some fees have been reduced in line with unit costs, including those for sponsorship, the transfer of conditions, travel documents and settlement visas for refugee dependent relatives.
I turn now to some new fees which we are introducing. The proposed fee for tier 2 leave applications for up to five years, in line with new rules that allow a tier 2 (general) or tier 2 (intra-company transfer—long term) certificate of sponsorship for up to five years is £1,028 for applications made overseas and £1,202 for in-UK applications. That is equivalent to two tier 2 applications for up to three years’ leave but means migrants only have to apply once. There is a new fee of £1,093 for dependants of Armed Forces personnel applying for leave to enter for settlement. A registered traveller service will offer expedited border clearance to regular visitors from low-risk countries; after completion of the Border Force pilot, the service will be charged at an annual registration fee of £50 per year later this year.
Following a review of nationality fees, we are introducing a revised charging structure in line with the entitlements allowed by each route. The fee for naturalisation as a British citizen will increase by 4% from £794 to £826. Registration as a British citizen provides a similar entitlement to naturalisation but, in recognition of the fact that certain people would qualify by right to apply, the proposed fee is 10% lower at £743. Applications for other categories of nationality, such as British overseas citizen and British Overseas Territories citizen, will be charged at 20% less than the fees for those applying for full citizenship. Fees for children will be 10% cheaper than the equivalent adult fee.
Finally, we are bringing fees for optional premium services for visa applications into our charging legislation. Fees will be at a single global rate rather than set locally.
The second instrument for noble Lords to consider in this single debate is the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014. Noble Lords will be familiar with the civil penalty scheme to prevent illegal working from recent debates on the Immigration Bill. We are pursuing a broad package of reforms to tackle illegal working. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I see a common objective in dealing with this scourge. Some measures are in the Bill, such as strengthening debt recovery and streamlining objections and appeals. Other measures concern changes to secondary legislation, including today’s proposal to increase the maximum penalty from £10,000 to £20,000 for each illegal worker.
We can only deliver a comprehensive response to illegal immigration if we work with UK employers to deny employment to those without the right to work in this country. Illegal working is the main incentive for illegal immigration and often involves exploitation and unfair competition. The civil penalty scheme encourages employers to comply with their obligations to check the right to work of all employees, without criminalising those who make a mistake. Under the scheme, an employer can establish a statutory excuse by undertaking specific document checks. The legislation provides a separate criminal offence for those who knowingly use illegal labour.
When an illegal worker has been identified and the employer has no statutory excuse, a financial penalty will be levied according to a statutory code of practice. Employers will have the right to object and, separately, to appeal to the court against the civil penalty. The maximum penalty was set six years ago at £10,000 for each illegal worker and has remained the same since. The Government are concerned that this penalty framework no longer provides a sufficient deterrent and does not reflect the full economic advantage derived from using illegal labour or the wider costs to society.
We intend to make the scheme tougher on rogue employers by increasing the level of the maximum penalty to £20,000 for each illegal worker. As is the case now, the maximum will be levied only on those who breach the legislation on more than one occasion.
We are also strengthening the penalty scale to ensure that higher penalties are applied where employers fail to conduct proper right-to-work checks. A revised draft code of practice that specifies the factors to be considered in determining the amount of the penalty will shortly be laid before the House. The scheme will continue to incorporate sensible penalty reductions for those employers who actively co-operate with the Home Office when failings in their recruitment processes come to light.
Legal migration brings economic, cultural and social benefits to the UK. We will continue to send a clear signal overseas that this country welcomes genuine visitors and the brightest and best migrants. I believe these instruments provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system that will command public support and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Baroness for her support and general welcome for these measures. I appreciate her comments and have, for me, a surprisingly large number of answers. I hope that the Committee will bear with me on them.
First, I must say that I did not refer to “a surge” but “a scourge” of illegal migration. I hope that the record shows that because that is what I meant to say. I do not want to get my notes muddled up and will therefore deal with the fees regulations first and then talk about the order on illegal working. I have a fair amount of information and will make sure that the noble Baroness receives details of the percentage increases, which actually were set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 February. I am sorry that I do not have a copy of it to hand but will certainly make sure that I send it to her.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked how much of the income generated is to cover a shortfall. She is quite right: we use this money to help support immigration services in general, which are quite expensive. If we want effective immigration control which efficiently delivers a speedy resolution of difficult cases, we have to make sure that we have the right resources to do it. The fee increases are expected to raise approximately £50 million per annum.
The noble Baroness went on to talk about that familiar subject: student visa fees and student numbers. If I appeared a little breathless when I came into the Committee, it was because I had been talking to a certain noble Lord about this very issue. I do not seem to be able to move around the House without talking about it. Our view is that there is no direct relationship between the visa fee and volume demand at this price level because the major costs are not visa fees or even the health charge that noble Lords have spoken about. Independent research suggests that visa pricing is only a marginal consideration for students and the UK is one of the most desirable places to come to study. This is an argument I have been making in the Immigration Bill. University applications are up 7% as of last September. We know that there is a problem in the Indian subcontinent as a whole, and that is reflected in the Australian experience. Elsewhere, numbers are almost the same. We have had a considerable surge in the numbers from China, which has more or less offset the decline from India. We are confident we have got the balance right.
Visas are not used as a method whereby we limit migration. We have not targeted tier 4 applicants. The 4% increase that applies to other fees also applies here, so it is a standard across-the-board increase. We set fees based on the value of the successful application to the migrant and, to that extent, it is a market-led calculation.
I think the noble Baroness welcomed the increase in fees as long as it was going to maintain or, if possible, improve service standards. We have put measures in place. There has been considerable organisational change in the old UK Border Agency. UKVI is now in-house in the Home Office, and our performance against service standards is improving. In the past year we have made great progress in reducing the stocks of in-country case work and backlogs. A straightforward application made today would be dealt with within service standards.
The noble Baroness asked whether we have considered joining Schengen or have considered our relationship with the Schengen visa system.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I was not suggesting that we join Schengen. I was just taking about the comparative costs of visas.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Our visa product is competitive with Schengen in price and entitlement. We are running a pilot in China trialling ways to encourage tourists to apply for a Schengen visa and also to travel to the UK. This allows selected travel agents—that is fairly straightforward in the Chinese experience—to make offline applications for tour groups using the same form as they use for Schengen. We are trying to facilitate the use of Schengen applications in China and are monitoring that because some people say that having to make two applications for separate visas is a deterrent. However, I am pleased that the noble Baroness is not suggesting joining Schengen. In fact, I have to say that I did not think that she had said that, either—but my papers suggested that she might have done.
On the question of illegal working, I have the figures, which show an increase in particular years. They started off at 1,722 in 2008-09; the next year, they were 2,339, while in 2010-11 they were 1,898 and in 2011-12, 1,342. In 2012-13, they were 1,270 but last year, up to 28 February—we are still in 2013-14—the number was 1,862. I shall make sure that the record has the figures available.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I did not quite catch them, but I shall read the record in Hansard. Does that suggest that from 2010 until last year, the figures for actions against those who employ illegal workers went down?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, that is certainly the case. They dropped in that period and they have now increased markedly, so the latest figure is on track to be the second highest since the scheme was introduced.
We are taking steps to increase our focus on illegal working. With the creation of the Immigration Enforcement Directorate last year, we have already seen a significant increase of 47% in illegal working operations in 2013, compared with 2012, and a corresponding increase in civil penalties involved. Around 10,000 civil penalty notices were issued to employers since the start of the scheme until the end of 2013. The gross value of penalties levied during that time is in excess of £90 million, but the net recoverable value is £70.8 million. During the period from 2008 to 2013, almost £30 million was collected. Civil penalties to the value of £20 million were written off. The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to that factor. That happened during the previous Labour Government as well as during this Government, often because the companies evade the penalty by dissolving their business. The remainder is still subject to recovery; we are still pursuing some of these people—but we are using the Immigration Bill to make it easier to enforce civil penalty debts in the courts. The change will accelerate the process of enforcement, reduce costs and provide clarity.
Lord Hussain (LD)
I wanted to clarify one point. What consideration has been given to how to implement the penalties on small employers whose sole income may not be as much as the penalties being introduced of £20,000?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Whether you are a small or large employer, it is clearly illegal to employ people who are not entitled to work here. The penalty regime is designed to provide the enforcement authorities with flexibility in how they apply the scheme. The whole point of the exercise is not to drive people out of business but to prevent businesses that gain an economic advantage by employing illegal workers from gaining that advantage and to discourage them—and to make sure that they have proper checks in place, small or big business, to make sure that they have proper records in these cases.
I would argue that in some ways it is easier for a small employer to have a rigorous regime, because people are more likely to be working alongside each other in small businesses than in larger organisations. We are trying to work with business. I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that the employment of illegal labour is a scourge that needs addressing and that, whether it is in large or small businesses, we are right to deal with it. They are treated equally, and we allow payments in instalments to reflect the impact on the business. I should just mention that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the Minister has other points to make on the questions I asked about the penalty notices then I may be jumping the gun, but so far he has only repeated the information that I spoke of and has not given any of the information that was asked for in the debate. One question was about the money written off. The Minister in the other place said that £7.2 million was written off when companies were dissolved. I asked in particular whether we did any checks on the directors of those companies to see whether they set up other companies. I also asked what the £12.8 million remaining out of the £20 million written off was for. In the other place, the Minister, James Brokenshire, just said it was for “different reasons”. When we are writing off £12.8 million, I do not think that that is an adequate reply.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot really add directly to the information that the noble Baroness already has but will certainly write to her on the matter. We are tackling phoenixism—the arrangement whereby a business is here today, gone tomorrow and there again the following week. We are intervening to prevent companies dissolving to evade penalties, which is a common enough phenomenon, and we act with the Insolvency Service to disbar directors who are clearly not prepared to abide by the law in this area. As I said earlier, the Immigration Bill accelerates debt recovery by enabling us to register the penalty as an order of the court. This avoids lengthy court processes, as we can insist on payment on a much easier basis than by having to use the court.
I have tried to answer a number of the questions but may not have answered them all. To the extent that I have failed to do so, I will make a point of writing to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend so that they are in the loop on this matter. I beg to move.