Alexander Litvinenko
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clinton-Davis
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to reconsider their decision not to hold a public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, following the judgment by the Court of Appeal on 11 February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary has decided not to seek permission to appeal the judgment and will give fresh consideration to the exercise of her discretion to establish an inquiry. The Government continue to co-operate fully with the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his somewhat implausible Answer. The fact is that three eminent judges have concluded that the coroner was absolutely right, that the Government’s case was unconvincing and that a special inquiry was needed. As we have heard, the Government have not appealed against that. Why do the Government concede that a special inquiry might be adopted, not now but in the distant future? Is that sensible?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord is being rather uncharacteristically churlish about the Answer I gave. These are complex and sensitive issues, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate, and it is right that the Home Secretary gives proper consideration to whether or not to hold an inquiry. That is her right and we should support her in that.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recollect that on 11 February this year Lord Justice Richards, in giving the judgment of a unanimous and strong Court of Appeal, examined in detail each and every one of the six reasons given in the decision letter by the Home Secretary and rejected each and every one of them absolutely? He crystallised the situation with this sentence:
“If she is to maintain her refusal she will need better reasons than those given in the decision letter, so as to provide a rational basis for her decision”.
Does the Minister accept that failure to allow this matter to be properly examined under the Inquiries Act 2005 would not only be a denial of the justice that the assassinated Litvinenko deserves but a breach of the commitment that the United Kingdom has shown so honourably over the years to the rule of law?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the Government have sought justice in this case ever since Mr Litvinenko died in 2006. That remains the position. This crime took place in this country and involved a British citizen. We want to see those whose arrests were sought by the Crown Prosecution Service—Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun—brought to and put on trial in the UK. Meanwhile, the noble Lord has emphasised why it is important that the Home Secretary gives proper consideration to the need for an inquiry.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, the judgment of this very powerful three-judge court emphasised that the case for setting up an immediate statutory inquiry, as requested by the coroner, Sir Robert Owen, is plainly a strong one. As has just been said, the judges rejected all the reasons given by the Home Secretary for not doing so, and then said that there needed to be,
“fresh consideration to the exercise of her discretion”.
That was said in a judgment on 11 February. In the intervening weeks, has the Home Secretary given fresh consideration and can the Minister now tell the House what her reasons are for accepting or rejecting the idea of an inquiry?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is quite right. The judgment was a firm one. None the less, the decision to order an inquiry requires proper consideration. There is no deadline for this consideration but, clearly, the Home Secretary will seek to come to a conclusion as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the arrest of those whom we wish to see tried for this offence remains our priority.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there was in the past at least a scintilla of plausibility in the argument that, on prudential grounds, it was not worth provoking the Russian Federation because we needed to work with it in other areas, such as Syria and Iran, but that after Russia’s blatant invasion of Crimea, all that has gone and justice should now be done?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, but, as I have pointed out, justice requires that those whom we wish to see put on trial in this country for this crime are brought to justice, and that requires the Russians to honour their agreement to extradite according to our request. I could not agree more with the noble Lord that our relationship with Russia has deteriorated as a result of the recent attempted annexation of Crimea. We are clearly not happy with that situation either, so it is yet another breakdown in our relationship with Russia.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, instead of passing sanctions of doubtful usefulness on various Russian citizens, would it now not be better to honour the promise given personally by the Foreign Secretary to Mrs Litvinenko, and to honour the Written Answer to me of 8 July last from the Minister, and respect the basic principles of British justice with a fully open inquest or inquiry? I have not understood whether the Government are committed to that or not.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think that I have made the position quite clear. The Home Secretary is considering, in the light of circumstances, whether an inquiry is the proper course of action. Meanwhile, as noble Lords will know, the G7—not the G8—is meeting in The Hague today to consider developments as a result of Russian aggression in the Black Sea area.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 8 months 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.
Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Relevant Documents: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to probe the Government’s intentions on fees following the questions that have been put by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on Amendment 79F and in the other points raised. This is a useful consolidation of the rules and the powers on fees, but I have two questions that I hope my noble friend will be able to comment on. First, what are the Government’s plans for immigration and visa fees following the passage of this Bill? Secondly, will fees and future changes to fees be set out clearly on the government website which I hope the Government will establish so that, following the passage of this important Bill, everyone clearly understands the prevailing immigration and visa arrangements? Those are points about intention and about transparency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, noble Lords have asked me quite a number of questions and I will do my best to show a techie side to my nature. Where I slip up, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to write. I am aware of the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I will have to write to him because I cannot give him an authoritative answer on a point that is not directly to do with the amendments that we are considering today. In any event, I will make sure that I get a letter to him on that issue.
I will speak to Amendments 79F, 81B, 82A, 87ZG, 87ZH and 87ZJ, which have been grouped together. I will not mention Amendment 87ZD because that has not been spoken to.
Amendment 79F concerns fees. It fits slightly uneasily in this grouping, but I am sure that it is something that we want to address. The current legislative framework for setting and amending visa fees is slow and inflexible, and we are experiencing that at the moment. We had a statutory instrument in January, and later on next week we will debate the actual fee levels. This two-part process is not necessarily the most informative. It makes it difficult for the Home Office to respond to identified issues—and opportunities, because this is an important area of income generation for the Government.
For example, it does not allow us to introduce new premium services or amend fees up or down within a particular period. It has also been criticised in this House because the “menu” of immigration and visa services is debated separately from the prices of the things on the menu. As I have said, that seems a funny way of doing things. The fees measures in the Bill are meant to address both of those issues.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who queried transparency on this issue, as did my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—that the whole point of this is to be more transparent and provide information on fees. The mandate to provide fees is an important thing to secure in Parliament. As I said, they are an important factor for the Home Office.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a number of technical points and I would like to thank her for advising me of them. The fees order will set out in relatively general terms the types of categories of fees that will be charged for. It will set the maximum and in some cases—although not all—the minimum levels for the fees that fall within each category. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The regulations will then specify the precise fee for each product, which could stretch to several hundred different fees. This mirrors the current arrangements. For example, the current fees order states that we can charge for,
“a sponsor licence or renewal of such a licence”,
and the fees regulations specify all the different fees for each type of sponsor licence payable by the different categories of sponsor. Thus the detail included in the order and the regulations mirrors the current arrangements set out in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 except in terms of the introduction of maximum, and in some cases minimum, fee levels into the order.
My noble friend went on to say that Clause 62(2) appears to require a fees order for all fees. She asked whether fees are chargeable outside of the specified functions. All chargeable functions must be set out in the fees order. The only caveat to normal treatment is set out in Clause 64:
“Power to charge fees for attendance services”.
She asked whether “any specified fee” under Clause 62(4) means each fee specified by a fees order. That is correct; it does. She assumed that Clause 62(10)(b) overrides subsection (8)(a)(ii), which requires a fee not to be less than the prescribed minimum, and that is correct. She also asked why subsection (10)(c) needed a failure to pay in the light of subsection (3). The consequences might mean the refusal of a visa in the future. Subsection (10)(b) relates to debt recovery in particular circumstances, such as where a payment is withdrawn once it has been processed and the application considered. Paragraph (c) ensures that we can provide that applications will not be considered if payment is not received. It also states that any other consequences for failing to pay must be set out in regulations. These provisions have been carried forward from current legislation.
My noble friend asked about costs and whether we can give an example of costs. Costs will be incurred by our commercial partners when, for example, providing visa services overseas, and they form part of the costs to the Home Office when providing services or processing applications. On Clause 62(13), she asked whether there are particular arrangements or ways to recover such things as the premium service. Yes, there are such arrangements. This subsection reflects that fees for the same function may vary depending on where and when they are delivered, and the specific service provided. It also reflects the fact that we may, in limited circumstances, charge different fees for the same product in different circumstances. We might, for example, enter into a reciprocal arrangement with another country by which we agree to offer a reduction in the visa fee to nationals of that country.
My noble friend put a question to me about Clause 62(4). This subsection is directed at the factors that the Secretary of State can consider in setting fees, taking into account costs and benefits to applicants. Subsections (4) and (6) are directed at the mechanics of the calculation, so that if the fee is being set out at a flat rate or by reference to an hourly rate, the reference to other factors is to give us flexibility in the future in order to charge, for example, with reference to a daily rate. My noble friend asked whether the rate is the hourly rate. Yes, it is, or there can be other factors. As I have just said, there can be a daily rate as set out above. I was also asked whether the calculation will involve an hourly rate to give the position/grade of the officers for whom a rate is charged. The grade of officers is not a relevant consideration when establishing an hourly rate. Where the grade of staff is relevant in establishing an estimated unit cost, it will form part of the calculation. This level of detail will not be set out in statutory instruments or a fees table.
My noble friend asked whether, where a fee is intended to exceed the cost, this will be made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations. We will include the unit costs, as is currently the case. She asked whether the exceptions might allow for increases in a particular class of individuals. No, the exceptions relate to exemptions from payments; that is, waivers. The Home Office currently provides a number of exceptions in regard to fees including, for example, asylum applicants and children receiving local authority assistance, and there is no plan to withdraw the exceptions currently offered. This is complicated and I am sorry to have rattled it off but my noble friend did ask that I put it on the record. I hope the record has noted it and that I have reassured my noble friend.
Lord Avebury
Will the Minister deal with the question that I asked about the directions that the tribunal would formerly have been able to give regarding the restoration of citizenship and its backdating in cases where that was appropriate? Since the tribunal has lost its power, those directions can no longer be given.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think that I will have to write to my noble friend if he wants an authoritative on answer on that. I have given the answer that I have before me, but if that does not meet the point that he has made—it is clear that it does not—I hope that my noble friend will allow me to write to him.
Lord Tyler (LD)
Before my noble friend sits down, will he go just one step further on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the case to which he referred, which seems on the face of it to be extremely serious if the facts as reported by Channel 4 last night are correct? Will he undertake to provide an answer and place it in the Library, and as soon as possible? I can see that, since the inquest has not taken place as yet, it would be all too easy for Ministers to hide behind that fact and not give us urgent advice on what seems to be a major problem with the way in which the immigration law is operating at present.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not want to be difficult. This matter is clearly not associated with an amendment or even this part of the Bill, but I am sympathetic to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Tyler have made. I will do my best to inform the House on the facts of the matter as much as I am able. If matters are sub judice, it would be inappropriate for any Minister to interfere with due process. I hope that noble Lords will understand that. I am always prepared to answer either Oral Questions or Written Questions on any subject, but we are here to debate the Immigration Bill. It may interest the noble Lord to learn that I am going on a removal flight on Friday to Kosovo and Albania. I want to see what goes on. I share the noble Lord’s determination to make sure that things that are done in our name are done properly. I hope that with that reassurance my noble friend will understand why I do not want to give an answer at the Dispatch Box at the moment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I appreciate that that point is not part of the deliberations today on the Bill but it was appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to address it given the concerns raised. I am glad the Minister has offered to place an answer in the Library if he is able to. I suggest if he is going on a removal flight that people do not know he is on there and he goes incognito. That is the best way to understand how these matters are carried out. I hope that is the case.
I turn to the amendments. On transitional provisions and arrangements regarding health, perhaps I should have been clearer. I apologise to the noble Lord if I was not. The reason for raising the matter here is that I am not clear from what he said in his previous responses when I raised this if any transitional provisions are required for the transitional arrangements. He referred to the arrangements between two departments—the Department of Health and the Home Office. Where I am confused and do not understand this is, as I said, in the real-life implications and workability. Will Home Office computers be able to talk to and share information with Department of Health computers?
My recollection as a government Minister of various meetings on Cabinet committees on this is that there must be some kind of process, agreement or even legislation to ensure that that happens. I am not clear if that has been agreed from what I have seen so far. It does not seem to be in the Bill and nobody is able to tell me how the process would work where, for example, somebody who has a visa and is in the country legally but has not paid the surcharge turns up for treatment. How will the health service know that they are legally in the country but just have not paid the surcharge? They came into the country and took their visa before the surcharge was in place. If that information can be provided only by sharing information between the computers of the two departments, how will that be done, have the arrangements been put in place and is legislation needed? If not, something will be needed in transitional provisions, presumably in this Bill, to undertake that. That is what I am trying to get to. I need to understand how it will work in practice.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
All I can say at the moment is that if that were needed in transition it would be in the Bill. I have been party to some of the discussions that have taken place. Indeed, it is intended that there should be an exchange of information between the two departments. If the noble Baroness does not know how that will happen, I hope I am in a position to inform her. This matter does not need legislation; it is one of good administration. My noble friend Lord Howe and I both share the determination that this should be properly done because it is important to make sure that the health service is not in any way impeded by measures that we enact in this Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I do not for one moment question the determination of the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to make this work but when we pass legislation we need to understand—as I said at the very beginning, at Second Reading—the evidence base for something being brought forward and the workability of it; that is, if what is sought can actually be achieved and the implications, including unintended consequences. I really want to understand this. If the noble Lord could undertake to write to me with further information about how this will work in practice that would be really helpful.
I raised two other points in speaking to my amendments. It was helpful to have the response on the record. I take it from what the Minister said that there probably will not be a government amendment coming forward on the points I raised on my second amendment, but if there was it would be helpful to have very early notice of that. I would have expected that today. On the other issue, he made the point on fees. This is a reduction in scrutiny. I understand the Government’s reasoning that under Clause 62 a higher level is set and it cannot go above that but in terms of setting the amount, specifically where the fee for the visa is higher than the cost of the provision, we experience a loss of scrutiny. That is now on the record and I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting that, even though I understand the reasons. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this is an interesting and useful amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought before us. If the only objection from the Government in the other place was that they thought it was out of scope and that it could not be brought forward, it is clearly no longer out of scope as it has been brought forward. I hope that the Minister might take the advice of my noble friend and that, if the Government are not able to accept this amendment or bring it back, they will explain why. I really hope that there can be a positive resolution to this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avebury for raising this matter and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Smith of Basildon, for supporting it because we are well aware of the issues faced in acquiring British citizenship by those whose parents never married. We agree that this is an anomaly which deserves to be addressed. Having understood that nationality matters were outside the scope of the Bill, we were considering whether a measure covering this could be drafted as a government handout Bill for the next Session. I understand that had this amendment been tabled in another place, it would indeed have been ruled out of scope. However, this House has different rules on relevance and therefore it is appropriate for us to debate the matter.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that while I cannot give her any numbers, she is quite right that this is not about numbers but about whether to do it or not. That is the position the Government are coming from.
As my noble friend Lord Avebury pointed out, the law changed on 1 July 2006 to enable British citizen fathers to pass on their citizenship to a child where the parents were not married. This was not made retrospective, however, because it could have created difficulties for those affected in relation to any other citizenships that they held. For example, some countries do not allow dual nationality, as some noble Lords will know. Since 1987, the Secretary of State has exercised discretion in relation to those born to an illegitimate father. Discretion is exercised under Section 3(1) of the 1981 Act to enable the registration of children born before 1 July 2006 who are the illegitimate children of British citizens or settled fathers. Registration can take place if the Home Secretary is satisfied about the paternity of the child, if all those with parental responsibility have consented, if the good character requirement is met and, had the child been born to the father legitimately, if he or she would have had an automatic claim to British citizenship or an entitlement to registration.
However, this exercise of discretion under Section 3(1) applies only to those who are minors at the date of the application for British citizenship. There is no power in law to register as a British citizen a person who was born illegitimately to a British citizen father before 2006 and who is now an adult. We accept that this creates a lacuna and that those who were born illegitimately to British citizen fathers are at a disadvantage compared with those whose parents were married.
I cannot accept my noble friend’s amendment as currently drafted because while this provision covers any person who would have been a British citizen had his parents been married, we think that it should be set out clearly exactly who should benefit from such a change in the law. In addition, other matters would need to be considered such as good character, which persons registered under this provision should be British citizens by descent and what additional measures should be included for those who might apply when under the age of 18. These are technical matters which need to be considered in amending the legislation. I am afraid that I must resist the amendment as it stands but I am happy to commit to taking it away, with a view to considering urgently whether the Government could prepare a suitable amendment for tabling at Report. I hope that amendment would have the support of the House, should it come back, and I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment and its proposed new clause.
“Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68)In section 2 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) section 78A of that Act (restriction on removal of children and their parents),”.”
“Prison Act 1952 (c. 52)(1) Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952 (appointment and functions of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5A)—
(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) in relation to pre-departure accommodation within the meaning of that section, and”.(3) In subsection (5B)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “facilities” insert “, accommodation”;(b) in paragraph (b)(i), after “facilities” insert “, pre-departure accommodation”.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Amendment 84A. As he said, the Committee will recognise the importance of the right to bail, particularly in relation to persons who have not been convicted of any criminal offence and who are often detained for lengthy periods.
I ask the Minister whether proposed new subsection (5A) is being brought forward to address a practical problem. How often are applications being made within the 28-day period, and with what result? I am concerned about proposed new subsection (5A) because it is not difficult to envisage cases where it may well be appropriate to bring a further bail application within the 28-day period, even if there is no “material change in circumstances”, the criterion in proposed new subsection (5A).
Suppose, for example, that a bail application has been dismissed because of the incompetence of the legal advisers—sadly, in this context, as in others, that is far from a hypothetical contingency. Suppose that the individual concerned lacks proper legal advice when the bail application is made. New solicitors may be appointed, a friend may be assisting the individual, they may be able to present a bail application differently or they may have discovered a binding Court of Appeal judgment which, hitherto, escaped attention. None of that would be a material change in circumstances, as I understand the concept, but it would surely be highly undesirable for the detainee to have to wait for 28 days before an application for bail could be heard and ordered, if it is appropriate on the facts of the detainee’s case.
I hope that the Minister will therefore be able to tell the Committee that he is prepared to think again on this important matter before Report.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate my noble friend’s amendment because it provides me with the opportunity to reassure noble Lords that the safeguards we highlighted when we debated Clause 3 in terms of the Home Office’s process and policy, common law and case law protections and, indeed, judicial oversight are in place when immigration bail applications are considered by SIAC. The power to detain under immigration powers flows from the Immigration Act 1971, and the consideration of whether detention remains lawful is governed by exactly the same legal principles. It is simply the venue that is different: SIAC, instead of the immigration tribunal. SIAC has its own procedure rules, separate from the tribunal procedure rules, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 requires SIAC’s rules to mirror those of the tribunal in how repeat bail applications made within 28 days should be handled in cases where there has not been a material change in circumstances. My noble friend’s Amendment 84A would remove the requirement for SIAC to dispose of repeat applications made on the same facts within 28 days without a hearing. That would create disparity between how different tribunals are required to handle the same matter.
As will be the case in the immigration tribunal, if a further bail application is made within 28 days of a previous unsuccessful bail application, SIAC can agree to an oral hearing, provided that there are genuine reasons to seek another hearing because there are materially different grounds to consider which may lead to a different outcome.
As I have said, safeguards are already in place. Clause 3 does not prevent an individual from applying for bail. Nor does it prevent an individual from challenging the legality of their detention, and legal aid will remain available for that. The Home Office will continue to conduct formal reviews of detention, and detainees will continue to have full access to legal advice.
I have been asked how many times the existing power has been used. The existing power has not been used for some time, so the Government have no statistics on its use. It is drafted so broadly that its meaning is, arguably, unclear. The government amendment is clear about the circumstances in which the power can be exercised and is proportionate. Therefore, it is more workable.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about judicial review and habeas corpus and their relationship with SIAC. He suggested that they were not adequate in SIAC. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the position in SIAC differs from the position in the tribunal. SIAC is a superior court of record, whereas the tribunal, which considers most bail applications, is not. In SIAC bail applications, SIAC does consider the lawfulness of detention, and detainees do not have to apply for JR or habeas corpus, although those options remain open to them should they wish to do so.
I hope that I have covered the salient points made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I understand that my noble friend’s amendment was probing. I therefore hope that my comments have reassured the noble Lords that there is no difference in the policy, procedural or judicial protections that those detained under immigration powers enjoy even if the case is under SIAC’s jurisdiction rather than that of the immigration tribunal. I therefore ask that my noble friend withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I understood on good legal advice that the principles in Chahal did read across to SIAC but in view of what my noble friend has said about that, I shall go back to my advisers and see whether they have any further comments on what he has said.
Perhaps I may make an aside about this amendment and others that we have dealt with today. It is very inconvenient, when looking up the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act or any other Acts to which amendments are being made by the Bill, to find at the head of each page in the version that we can see online that it cannot be guaranteed that all the amendments which have been made to that Act have been incorporated. This is a serious disadvantage because it means that we always have to go back to the Library, which has access to another database that contains the full Keeling schedules of Acts that have been amended. Normally, people using the parliamentary website cannot see that database and that causes some considerable inconvenience. I would be grateful if my noble friend could address that point at some stage in the future. I do not ask him to give me a reply now but this is a general disadvantage to people who are trying to work on these Bills which work by reference to other legislation. However, with those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47)In section 69C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (investigations: places of detention), in subsection (3)(g), for “or short-term holding facility” substitute “, a short-term holding facility or pre-departure accommodation”.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)(1) The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 11 (detainee custody officers)—
(a) in the heading above paragraph 3, at the end insert “and pre-departure accommodation”;(b) in paragraph 3—(i) in sub-paragraph (1), after “facility” insert “or in pre-departure accommodation”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), after “facility” (in both places) insert “or accommodation”;(c) in paragraph 4(c), after “facility” insert “or in pre- departure accommodation”;(d) in paragraph 5(c), after “facility” insert “or in pre- departure accommodation”.(3) In Schedule 12 (discipline etc at removal centres)—
(a) in paragraph 4 (assisting detained persons to escape)—(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for “or short-term holding facility” substitute “, a short-term holding facility or pre-departure accommodation”;(ii) in the opening words of sub-paragraph (2), for “or short-term holding facility” substitute “, a short-term holding facility or pre-departure accommodation”;(iii) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for “or facility” substitute “, facility or accommodation”;(iv) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for “or facility” substitute “, facility or accommodation”;(v) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), for “or facility” substitute “, facility or accommodation”;(b) in paragraph 8 (notice of penalties)—(i) in sub-paragraph (1), after “facility” insert “or contracted out pre-departure accommodation”;(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), after “facility” insert “or pre-departure accommodation”.”
Visas: Health Insurance
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to require visa applicants to have full health insurance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, we have no current plans to do so. The Immigration Bill that is before the House in Committee requires temporary migrants coming to study, work or join family members for more than six months to pay a health surcharge to ensure that they make a fair and proportionate contribution to the NHS commensurate with their immigration status. Overseas visitors will continue to be liable for NHS treatment charges.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. Does he agree with me that while the health service surcharge is welcome, at £200 it is a little inadequate, given that the National Health Service itself has calculated that the cost of providing services, even to people aged 15 to 44, is £700? More importantly, the proposed health service charge takes no account of a person’s illness, whereas if they were required to obtain insurance before they came to this country, that illness could be assessed and properly and fully costed. I am sure my noble friend will agree that it is no coincidence that out of 30 countries that provide comparable health insurance to the United Kingdom, only the UK and Ireland do not require certain migrants to have health insurance, which goes some way to explain the estimated health tourism bill of £2 billion.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, my noble friend to some degree misunderstands the reason for the surcharge, which is, as I have said, to ensure that temporary migrants pay a fair contribution towards the health service. It is not intended to be a full cost recovery but, none the less, it will raise in the region of £2 billion over 10 years. Visitors are not covered by this scheme and they will be liable for full cost recovery, which they may indeed choose to insure against.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that health insurance for visa applicants would be extremely complicated to administer. Does my noble friend think that there might be something to be said for it if the Government go down the route recently recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee of auctioning about 100 visas a year, with a reserve price of £2.5 million, to get accelerated settlement in the UK? I sincerely hope that they will not go down that route.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend is tempting me to elaborate a policy into a direction in which the Government have no intention of moving at the present time. There is a review of health service charges going on. Currently the recovery of health service charges is a problem. The health service is not getting the income that it should be getting from health service charges, but my noble friend is right to say that the merit of this scheme covering temporary migrants is that it makes a significant contribution and is very simple to administer.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that an inquiry is taking place at the moment under the auspices of the Science and Technology Committee to look at the dramatic drop in the number of overseas students engaged in science, technology and engineering subjects, and that one factor that has become quite clearly significant is the intimidatory character of the application of immigration rules, in particular this latest suggestion that there will have to be, over and above a very sizeable visa charge, a charge for health? This is having a deleterious effect on the number of PhD students, whom we desperately need in our institutions and who will make a continuing contribution to the British economy. It is a highly unsatisfactory way of trying to control inflation by imposing unnecessary and, as I say, intimidatory charges on a group of very attractive immigrants for Britain.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We have missed the noble Lord from our debates on these issues on the Immigration Bill. I assure him that the points he is making have been well made but the Government are quite clear that this does not put us in an uncompetitive position. Even the basic health insurance for a student going to Harvard is $958 and he might expect to pay $2,190 a year more if he wants full health cover. In Australia the annual payment would be £300; in New Zealand £325; in Canada £300. The actual cost of students in this respect is estimated by the Department of Health at £700 a year. This is not putting us at a disadvantage in the world market. We have the most excellent institutions here and I wish people would stop talking down our attractiveness as a place to study.
Lord Patel (CB)
On two occasions now the Minister has quoted the figure that a student would have to pay as £700. In reality, is it not true that we do not know the level of usage of the health service by students, and that the Department of Health is conducting an audit right now that will determine it?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have some figures here in front of me. I respect the noble Lord and I think he would agree that we have had some good debates on this issue. The figures say that non-EEA students cost the NHS around £430 million per year, with an average cost per head to the NHS of more than £700 per year. Those are the figures that I am giving the House, and I am assured that they are authoritative.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that these proposals are very broadly welcomed? Will he reassure the House that a proper monitoring system will be set up so that we do not reach the situation 12 or 24 months hence where we do not actually know what has happened?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
During the course of the Bill I have agreed to report back to the House on how this particular element of it is working.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly raise a concern that came to my attention when I was a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee some time ago. I heard from employers’ organisations in this country that they were very keen to have loose immigration policies. That was very understandable from their point of view. They would recruit migrants who were well educated and motivated and they might have felt that many of our population were not so motivated or well educated. I was concerned that there were not incentives for employers to train up, support and develop young people in this country, that those young people would just go on to benefits, and that a vicious circle would go on through the generations. I was therefore very pleased to hear the Prime Minister David Cameron say recently that his intention is to improve the education system—he feels that that is going a long way in the right direction—and to reform the welfare system so that more young people go into employment and there is not so much pressure on employers to recruit from abroad. It is tragic that so many young people waste their lives. I wanted to voice my happiness at hearing the Prime Minister express that commitment to our young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for ending this part of the debate by giving me a chance to say that he is quite right to pick up on the Prime Minister’s commitment in this area. What is interesting about the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and by my noble friends is that they, too, echo the sentiment on this issue within government at this time. As I reply to the debate, noble Lords will pick up the messages and echoes of that. Of course, some of what we have been talking about lies outside the provisions in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would like to include certain provisions in it, but I hope I can persuade the Committee that what noble Lords seek might be best done through a comprehensive package of measures based on the work that is now going on.
Clauses 39 and 40 amend the existing legislation governing the sequence for objecting to and appealing against a civil penalty notice for employing illegal workers and how we may recover penalties where an employer fails to pay. My noble friend Lord Avebury was particularly keen to know how that would work. I will come on to that. Currently, an employer can exercise their right to object to a civil penalty and appeal simultaneously, consecutively or alternatively. Frankly, this is wasteful and unnecessarily expensive for all. Clause 39 simply requires an employer to raise an objection before a formal appeal. The objection process provides a fast and efficient means of reviewing penalties and can negate the need for an appeal to the court altogether. I am sure that noble Lords will see that as desirable.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all other noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The Minister said that the type of sentiments I expressed in my contribution were not dissimilar to those of the Government. However, I still am not sure whether the Minister is anticipating, in any of the areas that I have covered, bringing anything back to this House before Report. He made a comment about formulating proposals shortly but I am not clear whether that meant in time for Report. It would be extremely helpful if he could clarify that point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, to give matters proper consideration, it is unlikely that we will return to these matters on Report. However, legislation, including the slavery Bill, is likely to come before this House. There will be other opportunities where a change may occur that does not require primary legislation and which can be effected through secondary legislation. I have indicated that a work programme is going on in this area and I hope that noble Lords will accept that our objectives very much reflect the thinking that lies behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response, although I am a bit disappointed that, apparently, nothing will come forward before Report. I am sure one point he would accept is that the world can be full of good intentions and measures that intend to be taken, but it is also about, first, whether those intentions are taken and in what form that counts and, secondly, if they are taken in an appropriate form, the extent to which they are enforced. That is one of the issues I raised in relation to the minimum wage and how effectively it was being enforced. Obviously, that issue no doubt will be discussed on other occasions.
I am not sure whether I should be pleased with the comments that the Minister made about the Gangmasters Licensing Authority on the basis that more areas of work might be coming under the terms of that authority or whether I should be concerned because perhaps a look is being taken at the powers and scope of that authority, and they might be diminished in the future. Perhaps he will give me an assurance that no one is looking in any way at diminishing the power and scope of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in the light, I thought, of his reference to a triennial review.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am happy to respond immediately to that request. As noble Lords will know, the triennial review looks at all public bodies and their effectiveness. The truth of the matter is that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, despite comments that have been made in debate, has been remarkably effective at regulating a difficult area of exploitation. There are other areas which the noble Lord mentioned and we are looking to extend the role of the GLA or a body which can perform that function, without prejudging the issue, in such a way as to make sure that we cover more ground and not less. The powers will be adequate to ensure that the same sort of regulation that occurs in the agricultural sector occurs elsewhere where exploitation takes place.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response. I will leave the matter in that context. Obviously, I will want to read carefully what the Minister has said in response and to look at the extent to which the specific concerns that we have raised in the amendments in this group are or are not being addressed by the work that the Minister has said that the Government are already undertaking. I know he agrees with me that, if we are to have a reasoned debate on immigration in this country, we need to address the concerns to which immigration can contribute, although not cause exclusively or solely, in housing and employment through exploitation of migrants by people who are not entirely scrupulous in their intentions and motives. Our doubts at the present time concern the extent to which this Bill, and the measures contained in it, will promote such a reasoned debate, certainly in employment and housing, hence the amendments in this group.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I will read carefully what he has said. I thank all other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this afternoon’s speeches have reassured me that I was not misreading the clause when I ended up, time after time, in confusion—not just as to the principle, but as to the point. I would sum up my confusion with three questions to myself. If someone is stateless, it seems he may be allowed to remain in the country, so how is the threat diminished? Indeed, is not any threat increased because of the reaction of the individual and his community against the state’s action? Secondly, what happens to his dependants—are they not likely to become more of a burden on the state? Thirdly, is this one of those occasions when neither Parliament, concerned with the principle, nor the individual, at the sharp end of the practice, is able to challenge the decision—one of those occasions of “If you knew what I know”? We are not thought police, and I was reassured when I read in the clause a reference to a person having “conducted” him or herself in a prejudicial manner—but of course we cannot know about conduct any more than thought.
Like the noble Baroness, I read the report in the Independent today and I thought it a clear example of the impact on someone left stranded. I think he was served with the decision when he was transferring between planes: he was part way—as he would have said—home, and had to return to, I think I am right in saying, Waziristan. However, he was stranded: separated from his community and perhaps family—I do not recall—in the UK, but regarded almost as an outlaw, and, as he put it, in danger from those in Pakistan and Waziristan who regarded him with considerable suspicion. It is a very disturbing story.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a very thorough debate on a clause which, as the noble Lord said, we owe it to discuss thoroughly.
I start by adding some further perspective to the debate on the deprivation of citizenship. The measures in the Bill to deprive someone of citizenship can be used only against someone who has chosen, as an adult—not as a child—to naturalise as a British citizen. When choosing to seek British nationality they will have taken an oath, or sworn allegiance, to Her Majesty, and pledged their loyalty to this country. Despite this—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I know it is early in the Minister’s answer, but can I be clear: is he saying that this will not apply to persons who were naturalised when they were under 18?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It will not apply to people under 18. Such people are not able to apply for naturalisation; they can gain British citizenship through registration—in effect, through their parents’ presence in this country. Rather, this amendment to the existing law applies to people who have sought naturalisation. As I say, they pledge their loyalty to this country. Despite this, a small number of these individuals have chosen by their conduct to betray the values and laws of their adopted country. Therefore, in my view, it is only right that the Home Secretary can, in seeking to protect the security of the UK, deprive them of that adopted citizenship, and expect them to reacquire, or to acquire, their former citizenship of another country.
I remind the Committee that the Government already have the powers to deprive citizenship. Such powers have been operated by successive Governments. Listening to the debate at certain times, I got the feeling that the argument was that no Government should have the power to deprive citizenship. However, the clear argument in these amendments is not on that case but on whether the exceptional case of statelessness should be an exclusion from the Government’s powers in this pre-existing legislation.
These powers have their origins in legislation dating back to the First World War, when provision was made for the revocation of citizenship if a naturalised person was suspected of treasonable activities. Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, which has been cited, allows the Home Secretary to deprive British citizenship in two scenarios. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, mentioned them. The first is where the person acquired it using fraud, false representations or concealment of a material fact, which essentially means that they used deception to obtain citizenship for which they were not eligible. In these cases a person may be left stateless. Are noble Lords arguing that they should not be deprived of citizenship in such cases?
The second scenario is where the Home Secretary,
“is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”,
and that the person would not be left stateless as a result. It is the second of these powers that Clause 60 seeks to amend by returning our position on deprivation action to that which existed as recently as 2003. These powers are provided for and permitted under international law by virtue of the UK’s declaration to the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the domestic legislation that existed at that time. These powers are provided for and permitted under international law.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister may be about to come to this point, in which case I apologise. However, I referred to the legal opinion of the Open Society Justice Initiative and Professor Goodwin-Gill. That raised a question over this whole matter and whether, the time having passed, we have in fact retained that power.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would say that the Government’s position is that we have. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, seemed to concur with that opinion. However, I was grateful for the noble Baroness raising that issue and I will take note of what she has said.
We should be clear that we are discussing in this context very serious cases where an individual’s behaviour has been seriously prejudicial to the UK’s vital interests. That is the definition. We expect the person concerned to reacquire the citizenship of another state and in most cases they can. It is not satisfactory that when dealing with such individuals the Home Secretary’s decision is at the whim of the nationality laws of other countries. These cases will be few in number and subject to the most careful scrutiny by the Home Secretary.
I turn to Amendments 74 and 79. It is not in dispute that any individual deprived of their citizenship, either under existing powers or as a result of this clause, would have the full right of appeal regardless of whether they were in the UK or overseas. Grounds for appeal can include both the legality of the action and the merits of the Secretary of State’s decision. Therefore the courts already have an important function in reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision on appeal. I cannot agree that it is appropriate or necessary that the court should have to give permission before the Secretary of State can issue a deprivation decision. Any such procedure would be impractical and out of step with any other immigration and deprivation decisions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he seems to be moving on from the question of proportionality. I asked if he could give an example of where it could be envisaged that the economic well-being of the country being threatened might be the reason for depriving someone of their citizenship and making them stateless. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was surprised about this being a possible reason. Can the Minister elucidate with an example of where that might be the case?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness will have to allow me to write to her on that issue. The Government have responded to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so she may find that the answer is in there. If not, I will seek to provide her with that answer.
As I said, Clause 60 is consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law. As I have set out here, and as accepted by the JCHR in its recent report, this clause is in accordance with international law by virtue of the UK’s declaration upon ratifying the 1961 convention and the domestic legislation that existed at the time. There is therefore no question of the clause undermining our international obligations. We are adapting and responding to the threat that the UK faces, but acting within our international obligations. Amendment 76 would be an unnecessary addition to the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked if we were contravening international law by making people stateless. I have given the answer to that. As a party both to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961 and the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954, the UK is obliged to comply with the provisions of those conventions, which we would continue to do. If a person was recognised as a stateless person and inside the UK, they would have—as my noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly pointed out—protection against removal and a right to work and study. Depending on circumstances they may be granted access to public funds and be able to apply for a stateless person’s travel document. Those, therefore, are the facts: we would not seek to ride roughshod over those conventions that we have signed up to.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I did not intend to intervene until the noble Lord had spoken, but there is a lack of clarity in what he has just said. It does not seem to be the same as what the Minister, James Brokenshire, said in the House of Commons. He said that special consideration may be given, and that if leave to remain or some other kind of leave to be in the country was given, conditions would be attached to it. He mentioned new conditions. Is that the noble Lord’s understanding, or is this something different?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I must say that nothing I have said implies that there may not be conditions. They are frequently imposed on people who may pose a threat to this country, and this case is no different. However, I have said that the right to protection against removal would be part of our obligation under the existing conventions, and we would not seek to do otherwise than honour those conventions.
On the challenge made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the question of deprivation action taking place only in the UK, that is the salience of Amendment 76A. The purpose of the new power is not to target naturalised people who are abroad, but to allow the Secretary of State to take timely action against individuals, whatever their location at the time the decision is made.
However, it is a fact that in some cases key information comes to light when a person is outside the UK. Indeed, often travel abroad to terrorist training camps or to countries with internal fighting is the tipping point—the crucial piece of the jigsaw—that instigates the need to act, given the potential danger that those individuals would present on their return to the UK. The Home Secretary therefore needs to be able to determine the most appropriate response and timings to deprive a person of citizenship, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the UK.
Lord Pannick
Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Home Secretary will not deliberately wait until an individual is abroad before exercising Clause 60 powers?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is up to the Home Secretary to determine when she exercises powers in the country’s best interests. As far as I can see that is a sort of non-question, because she exercises the powers at her discretion and will do so in the best interests of the country.
Nationality can be reacquired, says Amendment 76A. On that amendment, it is a reasonable requirement for those deprived of citizenship to acquire an alternative nationality quickly. However, often those individuals have little incentive to do so, and any arbitrary time limit imposed on the power would only provide an incentive to delay.
The purpose of this power is to ensure that the Home Secretary can protect the security of the UK, whether or not the individual can or has the inclination to avail themselves of another nationality. In considering deprivation cases, assessments will be made of all circumstances, including the right to another nationality, but statelessness of itself should not be an arbitrary bar to action.
Let us be clear: deprivation action is taken only against those individuals who meet the thresholds I have outlined. We do not, and cannot, take deprivation action against family members—husbands, wives or children. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. It cannot be done on the basis of any relationship to the person being deprived. The Home Secretary has a statutory duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to,
“safeguard and promote the welfare of children”,
in respect of immigration, nationality and asylum decisions. That is a duty which we take seriously and there is no necessity to restate it explicitly in the context of Clause 60, as Amendment 77 seeks to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked specifically about the case of Y1. The judgment in that case from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in November 2013 dismissed Y1’s appeal against deprivation. The Home Secretary is entitled to reach her decision on how to manage cases using available evidence as appropriate.
The noble Baroness asked about numbers and mentioned that 27 people had been deprived under conducive powers since 2006. These powers have been exercised by not just this Government but the previous Government. There have been appeals—15 individuals have appealed against the decision taken by this Government to deprive them of their citizenship. The majority of those appeals are ongoing but, aside from Al-Jedda, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, referred, to date there has not been a successful challenge to a deprivation decision.
Some noble Lords are concerned that the proposed new power enables the Secretary of State to take account of behaviour carried out before the clause comes into effect. Surely it would be perverse if that were not the case. Such a position would not allow the Home Secretary to consider the full background to individual cases. We believe that those who naturalise to become British citizens should adhere to the values and laws that they swear an oath to maintain. As such, we believe that there is justification for making this power apply with an element of retrospection.
Noble Lords have challenged whether deprivation makes such people less of a threat. Deprivation is just one of a number of tools that can be used to disrupt the national security threat posed by certain individuals, either on its own or in conjunction with other immigration powers. By removing an individual’s entitlement to a British passport and to enter or remain in the UK, deprivation can help reduce the direct threat an individual poses to the UK—for example, by precluding him or her from involvement in the development of terrorist networks, the provision of terrorist support or training and the preparation of terrorist attacks on the UK.
It is important to remember that a person who could come within the scope of this new power would already be liable to being deprived of citizenship under existing powers. The only thing that prevents that now is that such a decision would leave them stateless—that is the difference that Clause 60 seeks to address—which is a fact that may become apparent only some way into the deprivation process. Therefore, we do not consider that an individual could have had a legitimate expectation that there would be no consequences of their behaviour. Again, I remind noble Lords that we are talking here about individuals who have committed acts that go to the heart of our national security.
In conclusion, this is a limited power that will apply to the most serious cases involving national security and those taking up arms against British or allied forces. The Secretary of State will continue to exercise her power with due consideration and within the existing safeguards for such cases. I have taken note of the points that have been made in this debate, and having time to go through the particular provisions of Clause 60 has been very worthwhile. I have noted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that between now and Report we have a meeting to discuss the implications of Clause 60. Indeed, I have noted the positive suggestions made by a number of noble Lords. In the mean time, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Pannick
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I could ask a question. He gave a very comprehensive reply—a very helpful one, if I may say so—but, unless I missed it, I do not think that he responded to the concern that, far from promoting the security of this country, Clause 60 will damage security. This is because the clause will make it more difficult to remove dangerous people, and make it more likely that dangerous people who are temporarily abroad will be sent back to this country because they no longer have a British passport. I wonder whether the Minister wants to say anything about those concerns.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That was of course a consideration in the discussions that led to the tabling of this clause. I think that I did address this point, in the sense that an individual who poses a threat to this country can have restrictions placed on them other than the deprivation of citizenship. I am sure the noble Lord will understand this point. I wish to make the point that this is a balanced judgment. The Home Secretary, who after all has to exercise powers within the law on this matter, believes that the law is deficient in this respect. She seeks to change it, and is doing so through this Bill. Knowing her, I do not think that she would make that decision if she felt that it would in any way weaken the security of this country.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to ask the Minister yet another question. However, I asked a very specific question which was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I do not believe that the Government have responded to our second legislative scrutiny report. If they have, the response has certainly not yet arrived on my desk. The question was: how many of those who have been deprived of citizenship in recent years have been abroad, and why will the Government not provide that information to Parliament? As the JCHR said, surely Parliament has the right to have that information in considering Clause 60.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is right. I was getting muddled between the two responses. The second report has not yet been responded to; it will be. I hope that it can address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the question of whether there was some difference between what James Brokenshire said and what I said in my speech. Perhaps I can explain that by saying that where a person cannot be removed to another country, we would consider whether a discretionary granting of leave was appropriate. An option would be for the person to be placed on limited leave, with conditions such as regular reporting restrictions or the need to notify the Home Office before taking up work or study in a particular field. I hope that explains that there is no difference, and I think it backs up my supplementary answer to the noble Baroness when we debated the issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for coming back to me on that point, but there are numerous other questions that he has failed to answer. He has not answered any questions about whether there are any other areas of law in this country that allow for two categories of citizenship. He has not told us whether there have been discussions or consultations with other countries to which British passport holders may travel—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
On that first question, perhaps I could ask what the noble Baroness means by “two categories” of citizenship.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
In most countries, if someone is a citizen then they are a citizen. If someone is a natural born citizen of this country, their citizenship cannot be removed and they cannot be made stateless. Yet in this Bill the Government propose that if someone is a naturalised citizen of this country—as are Members of your Lordships’ House—they could have their citizenship taken away, even if they would be made stateless. I thought that that was clear, and that it was the point of what the Government sought to achieve.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Surely the categorisation is about naturalised British citizens and not about whether they are stateless. Therefore, this is in existence because it already exists in UK law.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that the noble Lord is missing the point. My understanding was that if someone was a naturalised British citizen, he or she had all the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen. That is changed by this legislation. I was asking whether any other area of law is responsible. The noble Lord can come back to me on that. The position would be changed by this legislation because a naturalised citizen can be stripped of their citizenship and be left stateless. If I am correct in my understanding, a British-born citizen could not be left stateless. Only naturalised citizens could be made stateless by this legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord wants to respond to that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am afraid that there is a disconnect in our train of thoughts on this. I will write to the noble Baroness to explain exactly how this operates. The only change made by Clause 60 is that statelessness is no longer a reason why naturalised citizens should not be deprived of their citizenship. It is not a question of two categories of citizenship based on whether a person is naturalised or not.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that it does and I will look to the lawyers on this issue. I also look forward to receiving the letter. Only naturalised citizens of this country could be made stateless. Natural-born citizens could not be made stateless by this legislation. However, I have other questions. I asked about consultation and discussions with other countries on the impact of people travelling overseas on a British passport and having their citizenship withdrawn. The noble Lord has not come back to me on that point. He has no more information on the 27 people. He has not come back on the issue of someone not being able to get citizenship in another country. We have the short-term answer but not the long-term answer. A number of questions remain unanswered.
The noble Lord is always very gracious and helpful in writing to noble Lords when he has not been able to answer questions. However, this clause has had very little scrutiny in Parliament. To have tabled it at the last minute, literally about 24 hours before Report in the other place, was disgraceful. It would have been helpful if all those answers had been addressed today to allow a full and proper debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for writing to us but that is not a good principle when issues have not been debated in the other place. After the noble Lord has written, the only discussion that we will have will be at Report stage. I find that unsatisfactory.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If the noble Baroness had advised me in advance of the things she was uncertain of, I would have done my best to provide her with those answers. I have limited resources available to me at the Dispatch Box and a limited amount of time. I have suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it would be very useful if we could discuss this matter before Report stage. In the mean time, if noble Lords have any questions other than those that they have raised today, which I will address in writing, please advise me. It is important to get this legislation right. I believe in being able to scrutinise legislation in this House, in Committee and at all stages of a Bill.
I apologise for not answering all the questions but I have done my best. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, advised me that he considered that my reply had been helpful. I seek to be helpful to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord always seeks to be helpful. My point is a broader one of scrutiny and the lack of time available for discussion, but I would welcome any meeting. I also say that my resources are somewhat more limited than his. I sometimes felt that in his response we were having a slightly different debate. He was responding to a debate about deprivation of citizenship. Most noble Lords who spoke in today’s debate were talking about statelessness and its implications for the security of the UK. There was little argument that there might be a need at times for people to have their citizenship taken from them or revoked. That was understood. It is the changes being made by this legislation that would create a position of statelessness that cause the most concern.
The reason I say that great scrutiny is required is to establish evidence as to whether the measure is necessary. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, was extremely helpful in his take on the measure before us. I also ask whether this measure achieves the objectives that the Government are seeking. The noble Lord and his party do not have a monopoly on wanting the citizens of this country to be safe and secure. I am sure that is the objective of every Member of your Lordships’ House. However, we do have to consider the wider impact and unintended consequences of any legislation that is brought before your Lordships’ House. There is much concern about the measure. Noble Lords have asked many questions and the opinions of respected and eminent lawyers have been quoted. That is because of concern that it does not achieve the objectives that the Government are seeking. Most importantly, it does not make the citizens of this country, or more widely, safer or more secure if people are deprived of citizenship in a way that makes them stateless.
I take on board entirely the comments made by the noble Lord. He was talking about individuals who have committed acts that are a danger to this country and that may involve terrorism. Why, if there is evidence of that, could it not be presented as evidence against those people? Instead, the Government want to make them stateless. There are consequences around statelessness that give rise to concern for public, national and international safety. I look forward to receiving further information from the Minister. The jury is still out on this. I have not been convinced that the measure proposed by the Government does what it seeks to do or is an appropriate way forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, my comments are equally brief. I have added my name to one of the amendments, and I think that the idea of an independent reviewer and a sunset clause are reasonable and worth further consideration by the Government. Like our amendment, they would provide greater oversight, which I would have thought all parties would welcome. Perhaps I may add one point. It may be possible that an existing independent reviewer could fulfil the role, and I think that we would all be willing to discuss how that could best be achieved.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, after the passion of the previous group of amendments, I find this a little easier to respond to. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has made the point that there is a pre-existing independent monitor, and indeed my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the role occupied by John Vine. His role was set up under the UK Borders Act 2007, and he is able to monitor and report on the efficacy and effectiveness of functions relating to immigration, asylum and nationality. That includes the effectiveness of decision-making on deprivation of British citizenship, so it exists already.
This is not an annual review process, and I think that that is probably one of the things we disagree on. With all his independent inspections, the chief inspector is permitted to examine only individual cases for the purpose or in the context of considering a general issue. But it illustrates that in addition to the judicial scrutiny of individual cases—I have explained that the power of appeal still exists—Parliament has already agreed an independent inspection regime which covers nationality and hence the deprivation of nationality.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have stressed the serious nature of the cases that will be considered under this new power. Clause 60 itself carefully limits the uses of the power to circumstances where an individual’s behaviour meets a new, higher threshold of being,
“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.
This will ensure that the courts subject the strength of the Government’s rationale for deprivation to close and anxious scrutiny in each and every case. In this case, I do not believe a new independent reviewer is necessary.
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the requirement to publish guidance and how individual cases will be considered, evidenced and decided. As I have said, deprivation is nothing new—it has gone on under this Government and previous Governments. Established practice exists, and guidance is published for fraud and deception cases, for example. Every case is different and will have its own case-specific facts. The core requirement on officials is to assess evidence and circumstances, consult colleagues across government and carefully weigh the evidence before making a recommendation to the Home Secretary. This is central to all cases. The Home Secretary herself reviews and personally signs off all deprivation decisions. Beyond this, there is little additional detail that would necessarily be appropriate, given that matters in cases that will fall under Clause 60 will be to do with national security. More importantly, in every case, the individual will be told the reasons for the decision and there will be a statutory right of appeal to the courts in each case.
I will address the bid for a sunset clause in this matter. The Government have a responsibility to protect the public and to respond to threats, and this clause is aimed at dangerous individuals who abuse their British citizenship and threaten the security of the UK. As I have emphasised, the power will be used only against those who pose such a threat. However, it is impossible to predict as and when these threats will emerge and I do not believe it would be appropriate therefore to time-limit the clause.
As I have said, I hope we have an opportunity to meet between now and Report, and this will no doubt be one of those matters which could be discussed at that stage. In the light of these points, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment and that other noble Lords will not press theirs.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I did not have in mind the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration but the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—I plagiarised the provisions in current legislation on terrorism for this clause—who I think would be the appropriate reviewer to undertake the work. I am not suggesting a new reviewer. This would fit very well with, and ought to be reviewed by, the same person who considers the application of terrorism legislation. However, I do think that there should be a review and statutory provision for it. I am a little puzzled as to why the Government might resist what, in the circumstances of Clause 60, is an extremely mild proposition, but perhaps that is something that we can discuss following this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have just a couple of queries relating to Schedule 8 on “Embarkation checks”. This obviously requires co-operation and action from the airlines.
I was a bit concerned to receive an e-mail and a briefing note from the British Air Transport Association expressing its concerns about the schedule—not about the principle or what it seeks to do but the way it could be achieved. It says that it has worked very closely with the Government to ensure that e-Borders is in place—it has invested in that—but it is concerned that it will not be able to use passenger data for e-Borders as a new system is being brought in. It is seeking assurances from the Minister about the action that is being taken to work with the UK airlines, which of course have responsibility. It is concerned about longer boarding times and, most importantly, the risk at borders, because it feels that introducing the checks at border gates will require unqualified customer service staff to take on the role of an immigration officer without having the training to do so. It also feels that in some airports there are physical constraints because there is not sufficient or adequate infrastructure to support the efficient and timely carrying out of the checks. It also mentions issues around cost.
My understanding is that the British Air Transport Association has put a proposal to the Home Office on how to address this and how it can meet the requirements of the legislation without incurring additional costs, delays, constraints or compromises in security, which is another concern. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could address those points, and tell us what discussions are ongoing at the moment and when the Home Office expects to reach agreement on this. My fear is that if the association says that it physically cannot undertake measures in the Bill, a very serious situation then emerges.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this is an opportunity to discuss this development, which forms part of the strategy and is widely supported.
I am very pleased to have the support of my noble friend Lord Avebury on this issue. He asked whether he was correct in his assumptions. I can tell him that he is: for the vast majority of individuals, the embarkation checks will be quite simple and straightforward and the existing officials employed by ports and airlines will be trained to do this task using very limited examination. The checks will allow those who currently have a role in outbound passenger processes to be designated and trained to perform the basic checks to establish a person’s identity, to collect the data necessary to identify threats or persons of interest and to confirm departure, so it is only those who are of interest who would be dealt with. It is not intended that designated persons should exercise any other powers of an immigration officer, such as powers of search or detention.
The exit checks will allow us more easily to identify those who have overstayed their visas and will help us improve measurements of migration so that we have a sounder basis for policy-making. The Government are confident that Clause 61 and Schedule 8 as drafted will provide the full range of powers necessary to conduct embarkation checks at the border and to collect all the information necessary to deliver in full an exit check capability.
The noble Baroness referred to a briefing that she had had. I have not seen that briefing but we are working closely with airlines to ensure that those checks can be conducted with minimum if any delay. We want to control departures in the same way as we control people coming into this country. We have introduced a new system for general aviation, the collaborative business portal, which allows operators to enter their data online. We do not plan to use the embarkation check powers in the Bill for general aviation and general maritime operators. We are working with them on a co-operative basis to enable them to come up with solutions that deliver our objectives, and those discussions are going very well.
I was asked by my noble friend whether we would achieve 100% coverage of exit checks. As I say, our target date is April 2015 and we are still sticking to that. We will have the arrangements in place to enable checks on those who leave the UK on scheduled commercial air, sea and rail services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether this would lead to long delays at ports. We see the checks as being important, but our aim is to integrate them within the grain of existing processes in order to minimise the impact on passengers at ports. We are introducing the powers in the Bill so that we do not need to use immigration officers to do this work but, rather, can use existing staff, properly trained to deal with this particular process.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that that is the point I was making. One of the issues raised by air transport operators was that it would not be qualified immigration staff undertaking checks but rather customer service staff.
Also, I think the Minister said that there would be two dates. He said that all the exit checks would be in place by April 2015 but then said that the system would not be rolled out in every place. I am trying to understand whether this really makes our borders more secure, or whether the fact that unqualified customer service staff instead of immigration staff are undertaking checks will cause a problem.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Not at all. These are not customer service staff but designated persons who will have the authority to do the task of exit checks. They will be designated and trained to perform the basic checks required that will deliver the policy.
I do not think that I said that this would be rolled out. I said that we intended to have the checks in place by April 2015. That is the plan, and it is going according to plan. I hope that the Committee will accept that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend comment as to whether this power will allow checks which might be appropriate in certain circumstances or whether the plan is to check the passport of every person leaving the UK? If I go to Düsseldorf, is British Airways in future going to be checking my immigration status? I think it would be helpful to have clarity as to the intention.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
All I can is that if my noble friend is flying to Düsseldorf, she can expect to have her passport checked at that time. She will know that that is what is happening. There is no difference.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry, but I seek clarification on this. Does that mean that those airlines already compliant with providing passenger data through e-Borders will still have to have these additional checks undertaken at the point of leaving the country?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We are working with the airlines to find ways in which the existing advance passenger information can be incorporated into these checks. The advance passenger information provides only so much information. It is very useful and gives names, but it does not necessarily give the details of the individual’s passport or any visa requirements on that passport. That is a matter for examination, and the designated staff will be in a position to check that material at the time the person leaves the country.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am sure it would be helpful to understand this in a bit more detail because now you put the detail of your passport online when you order your ticket. The passport is not checked, except very summarily, when you get on to the flight. It really is an understanding of how this is going to happen. It may be that you are going to put more advance information online when you buy your ticket. I am very supportive in principle of the measures, but I think the logistics are very important.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The logistics are a matter for detailed planning with the airlines. What the Bill does—what this schedule provides for—is give those people who are responsible for dealing with this work the powers which at present they do not have. Advance passenger information already supports electronic texts on a large number of outward-bound journeys. API will be part of the exit checks solution along with other options, including checks conducted and data collected at the port of departure. These matters are being discussed so that this can be done efficiently, but API is a contributory element of this provision. As to the detail of how it is going to operate in every form of transport—every airport, railway station and port—I cannot possibly say at this stage. The powers of this Bill give those who will be challenged to perform this task the right to conduct those checks. Otherwise the checks would have to be done by immigration officers and we do not consider that this is an appropriate role for the Border Force.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this debate has gone well beyond my amendment. I am not entirely sure that I had an answer to my amendment, but perhaps my concentration lapsed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
I am delighted that we now have another name for the rollout and the trial run; we are accumulating quite a vocabulary of descriptions for this important part of the development of this legislation. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. We have moved down to some detail, which it is important that we use Committee to tackle. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling his very thoughtful amendments, and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for hers. They are clearly intended to improve this part of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity I had to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I explained already, and with a number of interested bodies to discuss these provisions. My door remains open to the noble Lord; some of the suggestions he has made today require further exploration jointly between government and their advocates, so I hope that this will be a beginning.
This group of amendments includes some interesting suggestions, which I will reflect on further, as is right and proper. However, some of them would represent a retrograde step. We can take things in a different direction and further forward than perhaps the amendments aim to take them. I remind noble Lords that the aim of the legislation is to require landlords to conduct immigration checks on all adults who it is intended will occupy the property when the tenancy is created. It does not require all such adults to be named on the tenancy, although that may become common practice in future, and the Bill allows landlords to delegate the task of performing checks to a letting agent. The checking requirement applies only where the property is occupied for rent or lodging as the person’s main or only home.
That is an important measure, and the Government are right to identify housing as one of those facilities which, if controlled by measures as provided for in the Bill, will serve as a deterrent to illegal immigration. I am sure that the noble Baroness will share that view, just as both parties agreed that employers’ checks on people seeking work have been effective in that regard.
The Bill does not require the landlord to monitor who is living at the property once the tenancy has been created. While some landlords already require their tenants to inform them of changes to the composition of the household, some do not, and we recognise that. Where a tenant sublets the property or accepts a lodger without the landlord’s knowledge, that tenant effectively becomes the landlord under the scheme, so to a degree the landlord’s responsibility applies to the person who occupies the house as a principal home.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case only if the tenant accepts payment by the lodger? Presumably, if they accept someone to stay in the property as a guest, nobody will be liable to check their immigration status.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is not a question of payment, but of whether that is their principal or main home. If it is not, and they are just a guest for the weekend or for a month, or whatever, that would be a different matter, but if it is the person’s main home, whether there is payment is not relevant to their status. I hope that that is clear.
Baroness Hamwee
On the same point, it is common in leases and tenancy agreements to provide a prohibition against subletting or having a subtenancy. In some of the less formal arrangements that the noble Baroness and I are aware of—I am thinking now about the head landlord and tenant—it may not be normal to provide for that, even though a mortgage company that has lent on property would expect it. I hope that landlords, as we understand them in the normal way, would not be penalised if they had a fairly informal arrangement with a tenant of the sort that would fall within this that did not preclude a subtenancy or sublicence. I hope that I am being clear about that. I can see that there may be more calls on what the landlord should do by precluding the possibility of somebody coming in and lodging or having a sublicence without the landlord himself knowing—and I would not like a landlord to be penalised because of that. It is an allied point; I am seeking for there not to be more requirements on the landlord.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry because, as my noble friend Lord Attlee whispered to me, “You’re wrong”. He is so delicate in these matters. But I am wrong. This transfer of responsibility occurs when rent is paid; when no rent is paid, that is not an arrangement under this scheme. I hope that that is understood, and that it helps to clarify the border as to where the reporting happens.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister and thank him for clarifying that—we all make mistakes. Does that not seem some kind of a massive loophole in the law—the landlord will have to undertake all these checks to ensure that the landlord’s tenant is a legal citizen of this country and entitled to stay, but the person who is renting the property could then allow guests to stay permanently, with it as their main home and with no payment? It would be possible for a rogue landlord to charge exorbitant rent to one person and for the others to stay for free. There seem to be complications around that, allowing a significant loophole in this legislation, if I am correct—but I may be wrong.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I might add to the complications by pointing to the provision that, although the residential tenancy agreement of rent must provide for payment of rent, it need not be a market rent.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, a further elaboration of the point is that the restriction applies only when the person is under an agreement, formal or informal, where the tenant pays rent. The immediate landlord is responsible; if the tenant sublets without the superior landlord’s knowledge, the tenant is responsible for the subtenant. This is quite convoluted language, if I may say so, and it might help noble Lords if I wrote to clarify that point. I see the importance of making it clear where the responsibility lies in these matters; I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue in the first place and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her comments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful—that is very helpful. But perhaps the Minister could address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself about a loophole. It does not have to be the market rent; it could be an exorbitant rent to one tenant to allow others to stay there for free. If he could address in the letter whether that is a loophole, that would be very helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I will do it in the letter. I feel that if I try to do so here today, I might get into even deeper water than I am already swimming in.
Home Office immigration enforcement will enforce the scheme in the normal course of its activities. Where illegal immigrants are detected during illegal working operations, when arrested for criminal offences, or as a result of intelligence, immigration enforcement will investigate where the person is living. This will include establishing whether the new duty on landlords has been breached, who owns or controls access to the property, and who is collecting the rent. That ties up with the consideration that the noble Baroness asked me to look at earlier.
The checking requirement will apply only to adults, and the person’s age as a matter of fact will be apparent from the documents presented. The system of document checks has been adjusted, following consultation with landlords, to reflect closely existing check practice by landlords. Where these simple checks are completed, the Bill makes it clear that the landlord will have an excuse, and therefore will not be culpable under the provisions of the Bill. Only original documents can be accepted in view of the obvious risk of forgeries, as noble Lords will understand.
Earlier in the Committee’s deliberations—I am grateful for the comments of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Williams of Crosby—I announced the Government’s intention to bring forward on Report an amendment to broaden the exemption for student accommodation owned, managed or arranged by higher education institutions in all parts of the UK. Obviously, we await the full detail of the amendment, but I think this very much meets the point that noble Lords have made. This is an important area for two reasons: first, because it reinforces the message that I am trying to get over that we want to make it clear that we are supportive of the university sector in this country; and, secondly, because it introduces the concept that there can be no need for double checking in this area given that the university has already satisfied itself that its students are properly entitled to be in this country. I note the suggestion about the engagement of Section 233 in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I have already noted my noble friend’s contribution on the council tax exemption point.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised concerns about people who are in need of support at a time of homelessness or the threat of homelessness. The exemptions in Schedule 3 already deal directly with the work of hostels and refuges and the work of local authorities, where they are providing assistance to comply with their duties, or are providing assistance on a discretionary basis to a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Therefore, we have made this clear in the Bill.
The noble Lord makes a very interesting suggestion in advocating, and elaborating on, a role for a verifying body to support small landlords in performing the required checks. I say, in the modest way that Ministers do, that I undertake to reflect further on the merits of this suggestion. This is an interesting matter for us and the noble Lord to discuss. The Government want these arrangements to be workable in practice. I think my replies have shown that the Government see this as an important aspect of policy but it must be practical and work for landlords and people who want housing. We also want these arrangements to be successful in achieving the policy objective of deterring illegal migration.
I think I have made it plain that I want to engage with noble Lords. I hope that, in the light of the reassurance I have given, and, indeed, my promise to write in detail specifically on the division of responsibility—that is essentially what we are talking about in relation to the definition of a tenancy and landlords’ responsibilities—the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this part of the Bill applies equally to agricultural landlords as to the more urban and residential landlords that most of the Committee would think of in the first instance?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I can confirm that. An agricultural tenancy or a house occupied in connection with any employment would clearly be covered. However, it should not be forgotten that the owner of that property, as an employer, would have already checked the person’s entitlement to be in occupation.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am grateful for support for the amendments in differing degrees from all around the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who makes the point that it is already incredibly difficult for overseas students to find anywhere to live that they can afford in London—and in other cities. We must not make life more difficult by putting up a new barrier that puts landlords off; that is such an important and fundamental point.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who raised a couple of significant points. The Rent a Room scheme that we already have is getting a bit tired; this is the opportunity to let a room in your house and pay no tax—indeed, fill in no forms and just get on with the letting on your own. It will make a difference to the individual who owns that property if having to check the immigration status of anyone whom they take in is added to the requirements on them. We need to look at the Rent a Room scheme again. The tax threshold—the amount you can receive in rent from someone in your own home—has not been changed for something like 11 years; we have to revise that. This is an important moment to look at that. The case is similar for lodgers and guests—these look like awfully murky waters. The Minister said that he would respond in writing, which will be helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, picked up on having approved verifying bodies that take all the hassle away from landlords—indeed, that take it away from the Home Office. However, she felt that it would be better to produce guidance and let landlords do their own thing. A voluntary scheme means that landlords who want to use it would just get on with doing so. Some 60% of private renting is through local agents. Rather than agents having their own mini-schemes—how many agents will become expert enough at this?—a central approved body that can verify people’s status would cut the cost to the landlord, and that might be passed on to the tenant. It would give landlords greater reassurance. I declare an interest: I chair the Property Ombudsman, which looks after letting agents and estate agents and the complaints about them. In the world of property ombudsman-ery, there is a system of the Secretary of State approving certain bodies as ombudsmen. That works well: it means that people can join a scheme knowing that it is properly approved, so people can stand behind it. Applying that technique in this field could be a clever move to help everybody to get this right.
The Minister made some important points. He underlined that the student lettings amendment that will be brought forward on Report will be a really good one. We will look at it with care, but it sounds as though it will do a great deal of what we hope that it will. On people being placed with a private landlord by an agency such as Crisis, a charity that takes potentially homeless people and persuades an individual landlord somewhere to take them on, he was not quite able to give me the reassurance that I had hoped for that that would be treated—as I understand it—like a hostel specifically for the homeless. These are specialist schemes in which the vetting will be done by Crisis. To say to the landlord, “I am sorry, we are unable to take away from you the responsibility for checking the migration status of the people we are bringing”, just adds another difficulty when it is difficult enough to get landlords to take in people, even with rent guarantees and other useful techniques. It would therefore be good to talk about that further.
I am grateful to the Minister for earlier discussions and his agreement that we should jointly explore some of these matters further. I look forward to such meetings and, in the light of his reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, these amendments build on the two previous debates that we have had on this issue and highlight its difficulties and complexities. I know that the Minister will give an explanation of these but I ask him to take on board the points that have been raised today, and the other points raised on Monday at Questions, which strike at the heart of what these clauses seek to do.
What worries me is that if landlords are going to rent out their properties and want to abide by the law, they will need to have absolute clarity about what is expected of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, thought that she was testing the patience of the Committee. I do not think she was because, for example, Amendment 55Q makes an important point. I worry that the measure outlined in that amendment could be a further deterrent to landlords to rent.
The noble Baroness mentioned the code of practice and the documents available. As I said on Monday, the Government have tried to be helpful by increasing the number of documents available. However, I am not sure how helpful that is because it creates even greater complexities. I had hoped for an explanation of why under List A of acceptable documents, 10f has only a full stop. Presumably there is something missing and there will be another document at some point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is only a draft document. There may well have been other matters under consideration at the time.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
So there may be further documents which are acceptable. I appreciate that.
However, clarity for landlords is crucial, particularly if they are expected, according to the impact assessment, to pay £6.8 million-worth of fines, which is the Government’s break-even policy objective. Every time I read the landlords’ guidance it raises more questions than answers and I am sure it will be the same for landlords. If I were a potential landlord I would regard this as a disincentive.
In the previous debate I asked the Minister a question about landlords seeking to play safe and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has reminded me that I did not receive a response. The worry is that landlords will look at the obligations placed on them and want to choose tenants who most look like, sound like and are easier to identify as, in their eyes, British citizens. Rather than choosing those who may even have permanent leave to remain, they are going to play safe. There is a discriminatory aspect to that. However, the specific question I asked was whether the Government have made any impact assessment of the impact of the legislation on the availability of rooms to rent in the private rented sector. It would be helpful to know if any consideration has been given to that point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful for both the debate and the amendments tabled by my noble friend. They contain constructive suggestions and are designed to make this part of the Bill work, an aim which noble Lords will share. The amendments seek to exclude vulnerable people and students from the provisions of these clauses. I have already referred to the Government’s plans in relation to students. However, I wish to provide some reassurance in relation to those who may be vulnerable.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, discrimination is a concern. Certainly if it became widespread it would destroy the credibility of these arrangements. That is why there is a code on discrimination running parallel with the code of practice. As noble Lords will know, to breach this code and to act in a discriminatory fashion is against the law in any event, and so it is part and parcel of the package of non-regulatory measures being brought forward to reinforce these particular provisions.
Clause 16 provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to authorise a tenant who has no lawful status to rent property. This will include asylum seekers, who will be able to confirm that they have a right to rent with the landlords’ checking service, or a landlord may conduct a check directly with the service. This discretion will be exercised where a failed asylum seeker is unable to return home because of a recognised barrier.
Tenants housed by virtue of children or national assistance duties are also covered in exclusions. Schedule 3 provides that any accommodation provided to a person as a result of a duty on a local authority is excluded—that is, a duty on a local authority in respect of any obligations to vulnerable people. It does not seek to particularise the duties, including the respective Acts and orders relating to children or social care; it is a general obligation which local authorities may have to individuals. Therefore the amendment proposed by my noble friend is not necessary given the wide scope of this exclusion.
The amendments are also intended to provide further protection to landlords. The provisions create a civil penalty scheme which the Government are committed to applying on a light-touch basis. Where a suspected contravention is discovered, the Secretary of State may issue a penalty notice, including where they are not immediately contactable. The landlord is then afforded a right to raise objections. Where these objections show that the landlord has a statutory excuse from a penalty, they will be notified in writing. No further consequences will arise if the objections show that the landlord has a statutory excuse.
The power to increase a penalty is important—it is a kind of parallel power—as it may not be immediately clear whether the landlord has been previously penalised in this way. The landlord may, where it is decided to maintain a penalty, appeal to the courts. That is the right order of events: rather than going immediately to appeal, adjudication can take place informally between the landlord and the Secretary of State.
It is proposed that where a penalty remains unpaid the Secretary of State should be able to pursue recovery through the courts if the penalty were due under a court order in exactly the same way as a civil penalty. In cases where an appeal has been heard by the courts, this avoids the landlord, the Secretary of State and the courts having to return to the same court to hear an application for judgment for an amount the court has already determined should be paid by the landlord.
Turning to Amendments 55A and 55B, to which my noble friend wanted me to pay attention, I remind the House that the proposed sanction is a civil penalty, an administrative scheme; it does not form part of a criminal investigation. Clause 23 places a responsibility on the landlord and/or agent to evidence that they have complied with the prescribed requirements and have maintained an excuse against a penalty where necessary. That does not mean to say that the Secretary of State is not required to establish that there has been a contravention of Clause 17 to justify the issue of a penalty notice, nor that the Secretary of State will not engage with the landlord or agent and give them the opportunity to establish an excuse before a penalty notice is issued. I can confirm that the intention is that landlords and agents will be invited to demonstrate their excuse before a penalty notice is issued. However, in cases where the landlord or agent refuses to co-operate with an investigation, the Government consider that this is a proportionate and practical approach. The landlord or agent can easily prove that they have undertaken the checks by producing copies of the relevant evidence, whereas it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to establish a negative and establish that the prescribed requirements were not complied with.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise because I now understand why the noble Lord is inching towards our pilot. However, I have asked him a question in the last two debates: has any assessment been undertaken of the impact of this part of the Bill on the availability of rooms to rent and properties to rent?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot give the noble Baroness an absolute answer to that question. Of course one of the reasons why the rollout is important is that we need to check to see if there are any adverse implications in this policy.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister a question about asylum seekers and persons appealing against a refusal of asylum who are occupying rooms in private houses? It has been said that there are quite a few people doing this, notwithstanding the fact that accommodation is normally provided for them under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Can my noble friend elucidate what provisions are being made for documents to be produced by those who are occupying rooms in private houses because they are not covered by the provisions of Schedule 3, to which he has referred? They deal only with the accommodation that is provided to most asylum seekers under the 1999 Act when they cannot afford to pay for accommodation of their own. However, there is still an important residual group of people who find space in private houses. They will need documentary proof that they are allowed to live in those houses and thus ensure that landlords are not breaching the conditions by taking them in.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I have made it clear that for people who have asylum seeker status, where it is not safe for them to return and therefore they may be failed asylum seekers, the Home Office will provide the necessary documentation to show that they have a right to accommodation even though their status may well be that of failed asylum seekers.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, perhaps I may also ask for some clarification. One of my concerns about this part of the Bill is that many landlords will simply not rent to anyone who seems to be foreign or who does not hold a British passport for fear of getting it wrong and being fined. I am afraid that that will inadvertently result in further racial discrimination and provide a charter for those unscrupulous landlords who are racist.
In response to the consultation, the Government accepted that the new rules might provoke landlords to discriminate against people they perceive to be foreign rather than to conduct proper checks. They also recognised the risk that vulnerable people might be impacted. So, is the code of practice and the associated guidance which will make it clear that the checks do not allow landlords to act in a manner inconsistent with the UK’s equality legislation sufficient? It simply requires landlords to read the code and adhere to it without any redress at all if they do not. Moreover, it will be extremely difficult and costly for any potential tenant to bring a challenge of discrimination or victimisation against a private landlord. If people cannot rent relatively easily, they will be forced to seek accommodation in the more shadowy parts of the housing market. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong about this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I do not want to sound complacent because I recognise that this is a cause of anxiety which has been expressed in meetings I have attended. It has also been expressed by other noble Lords in our earlier discussions about the Bill. I do not want to lay too great a store by the codes, but those codes exist, and I do not want to lay too great a store by racial discrimination legislation, which would clearly apply in such circumstances.
What I will do is to ask the right reverend Prelate to accept that this surely applies in connection with employment. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate feels, as he looks at the nature of people who are engaged in work in this country, that there is widespread evidence of racial discrimination, but I would have thought not. I think it is to the great credit of this country that it is able to welcome people, and this is certainly not a Bill that is designed to make people unwelcome, as long as they have a right to come here and to remain here. That is the principle of this legislation, and I hope the right reverend Prelate will be reassured by that. It is not meant complacently but I believe that, at bottom, the analogy with employer provisions is a good one and leads me to suggest that the particular fear that the right reverend Prelate refers to is not the cause for concern that he thinks it is.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this discussion has confirmed for me the complexity of the provisions, and therefore the advantages in having the sort of verifying body to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred in the previous group of amendments. We will come later in the Bill to the position of immigration advisers and tightening up arrangements there. It seems that, as well as rogue advisers, there must be many who are simply incompetent. One could almost say, “Who can blame them?”, but nevertheless I do blame them. Any arrangements which can make it simpler for those who are, as it were, at the coalface to operate will be very welcome. This debate has confirmed that in my mind. My noble friend Lord Avebury has been muttering in my ear about whether case law on employment restrictions applies here. That is another area where I dare say the Minister would say that it depends on the facts, but it is a good illustration of what we may be dealing with.
The Minister said that there was no need for a certified copy of a document, but I was suggesting—I hope—that it could be an option. The reference to the 48 hours to check reminds us all that, in this extraordinary letting market, the property will be gone in 48 hours. The Minister in the Commons talked about the increase in the penalty being based on “aggravating factors”. He said:
“If new information comes forward that demonstrates that, for example”—
I must concede that—
“the mistake was not innocent, but some sort of connivance was involved … it seems only right … that someone looking at the issue afresh should take that into account and reach a conclusion accordingly”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 7/11/13; col. 272.]
In my mind, that sort of connivance would be a new fact. I would be very happy to look at the language but I am concerned about the deterrent properties of this. I would hope that we might be able to pin that down a little more.
I will carefully read what the Minister said on this as it is a technical point. He referred to the detail of Schedule 3. My noble friend again questioned whether paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 covers the ground that we are concerned about. Going back again to the workability of these arrangements, I must of course read carefully what the Minister has had to say. I thank him for his answers and for what I think he said implicitly. These are detailed points which we might, if it is appropriate, look at again before Report so that we can make sure that anything we raise on Report is justified and not already covered. The Minister is nodding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is helpful that we have had this debate; I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has moved the amendment. As he said, it was originally designed to supplement his amendment relating to students. I think that we have got a good story to tell in connection with students. If I may, however, I shall deal with the particular amendment, Amendment 58.
The noble Lord is right that the provision is not immediately transparent; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has challenged me on this point, too. I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, may have been in respect of the exclusion of certain expensive discretionary treatments from the free access afforded by having paid the surcharge—I think that that was his concern. I said on Monday, and I am happy to repeat today, that no such exclusions will apply when the surcharge is introduced, and none is planned for the future either. We intend that the payment of the surcharge will provide the same access to health services as is available to a permanent resident.
I turn to the penetrating critique from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, felt that a degree of ambiguity lay within the clause, so perhaps I may explain why Clause 33(3)(b) states that,
“different amounts may be specified for different purposes”.
The answer is that it allows regulations to specify different amounts of surcharge for different categories of migrants—currently, there are only two amounts: the £200 rate and the £150 rate—without which we would not be able to give the discount to students, which is one of the elements of the Bill. We need this capacity to do so. We do not have it in mind that there will be other categories, but this is the way in which the discount for students is facilitated by the legislation. It does not refer to NHS charging in the legislation.
Perhaps I may refer to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, because we have a very different health system here from that in the USA and in Australia which requires a different solution. Health insurance requirements would be expensive and compromise our own competitive position in the international market for students and for workers, which is not what we want the Bill to do. Most EU countries do not enforce the Schengen visa health insurance requirement at their borders. A student applying to Harvard in the USA, for example—my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby referred to Harvard and its great pull as a centre of learning for overseas students—has to pay a fee of $958 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s more comprehensive health insurance plan, which is comparable to what the £150 rate gives access to, would cost a further $2,190 per year. That gives some measure of what is involved. We have already committed to this discount for students—that is what this clause is about—in recognition of their contribution to the UK, reinforcing, I hope, arguments that I am trying to make at regular intervals in our debates. They will pay just £150 instead of £200, which is 1% of the cost of coming to study in the UK and exceptional value for money, as I am sure noble Lords will agree.
Why does the Bill allow surcharge payers to be charged for further treatments? So that noble Lords are clear, I should clarify that the Bill does not prevent the exclusion of certain expensive, discretionary treatments from the free access. However, we have made it clear that we intend that no such exclusions will apply when the surcharge is introduced. The Department of Health has been clear that it will consider these in future only in the event of exceptional and compelling specific justification for health purposes; and any changes would need to be put before Parliament in the form of revised NHS charging regulations. One might say that this is for treatments which may in future emerge where it is considered that the health service quite properly should charge not just migrants but members of the UK population.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether there was a problem with the drafting of Clause 33(4). The drafting purpose of Clause 33(4) is to provide a clear link in the Bill to health treatment. Without it, the clause would give an unlimited power to charge for any purpose, which is the intention neither of the clause nor of that particular subsection of it. I note what noble Lords have said about the wording of the subsection. It has been carefully drafted, but if I can provide noble Lords with an explanation of line-by-line implications, I shall do my best to do so before we get to Report. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
Where the Bill uses the words,
“likely to be available free of charge”,
in Clause 33(4), it anticipates the possibility that the Minister mentions—that while we do not intend to charge anybody at the outset of the operation of the Bill for services of particular cost, we have it in mind to do so in the future. That would apply to students and to short-term migrants as well.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I made it clear that the wording is designed to enable the health service, if it feels that particular treatments should be charged for, to do so. There is no intention to do so at present, but it is important that the Bill makes it clear that this is a facility which the health service wishes to reserve for itself. I think that it is quite proper for it to do so, but there is no intention on the introduction of the health charge for there to be any additional fees for additional treatments.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, will the Minister clarify two things? I apologise if I appear to be Baroness Dim on these two points. The first is: will people who do not want to pay the health charge be refused permission to come into this country? I want to make that clear and have it in Hansard. Secondly, I am still not clear about the phrase that the Minister used a while ago, “different categories of charging”. I am still not clear about what will happen
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There are two different categories of charge currently: that for students and that for everyone else. I just wanted to make that clear. The wording is general, but those are the two categories that the Bill is intended to introduce. On the question of whether paying the surcharge is mandatory, yes, it is for overseas applicants.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that the real purpose of the clause and those words is to open the gates so that at some time in future, UK residents could be charged for services?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, that is not the case, but they may be, as they currently are, charged for particular treatments. There are some medical treatments available in this country which are not available under the National Health Service. That would remain the case. That is not the purpose of that particular phraseology. As I have explained, it is to provide for the charging of different categories of migrants—students and others. That is the purpose of the wording. The National Health Service has always said that it will provide health treatment free at the point of use. The purpose of the charge is to put applicants on the same basis as every other resident of this country, so the anxiety that my noble friend expresses is ill founded. This is not the vehicle for introducing mass charging for treatment under the National Health Service. That is not the purpose of the clause and it will not be possible to achieve it through this legislation.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I listened with great interest to that exchange. If the noble Lord is prepared to follow my suggestion and look at the wording, there is a bit of a mismatch between what one finds in Clause 33(1)(b), which mentions,
“any description of such persons”,
and the phrase,
“different amounts may be specified for different purposes”,
in subsection (3)(b). I could understand the linkage if one were talking about different charges for different categories of persons, but it is the breadth of the word “purposes” in subsection (3)(b) which causes difficulty. Looking to the future use of the clause when it becomes a section, it would really be helpful if it were a little more precise.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that advice—free legal advice to the Government is considered to be very valuable. I hope that I have been able to explain what the legislation is intended to do and have reassured noble Lords on that point. Beyond that, I can commit to go back to look at the wording of the clause to see whether the intention could be made more explicit. That I will seek to do.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Noble Lords understand that there are now NHS treatments and services for which charges are made and that people who are resident in this country pay those charges, as do visitors. What is perplexing about the clause is, given that that is the case, what is the Government’s intention? Is it to reach a point in future where different categories of people have to pay for identical services? If the Minister could write to noble Lords and give us some examples of what scenario the Department of Health envisages under the legislation, that would be extremely helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is nothing sinister here. This is not a Machiavellian move by the Government. It is to bring in a differential between the charge for students and the charge for ordinary migrants, which I am sure that noble Lords applaud. That is the objective. I reassure my noble friend that I will take her advice and write to Noble Lords on this point. I was here for Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, when mention was made of the weight of paper with which noble Lords have been bombarded concerning that Bill. I fear that we may be getting into the same situation here, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that, in technical matters such as this, it is often easier to put things in writing, because I can be more explicit.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have a few points to make. First, the Minister said that the subsections of Clause 33 were very carefully drafted. Listening to the debate, I think that there will be a collective opinion in the House today that that is not the case. I am pleased that the Minister said that he will look at the provisions to see whether the purpose for which they have been written can be clarified. I look forward to new amendments.
I am much clearer now about three things. First, once the health charge, or the levy, is paid, currently, for all those who pay the levy, health services will be available to them free of charge, just the same as permanent citizens of this country. That bit is clear. The second thing clarified by the Minister—I thank him for doing that—is that the words,
“and different amounts may be specified for different purposes”,
do not refer to health service charges but to categories of immigrants or students who we allow to come to this country.
The third purpose is what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to in subsection (4), which does refer to health charges that might be brought in subsequently. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the Minister was quite clear that they do not apply to residents of this country and that the Government had no intention of using this as a backdoor way to bring in charges in the NHS for citizens of this country. The subsection refers to extra charges that the Government may introduce through legislation which will be brought to Parliament in the first instance. I hope that I am clear in what I understand and that that is what the Minister said.
On that basis, until we see the redrafted clauses, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
As someone who is not a chartered accountant, I thank the noble Lord for the free advice. If I were to redraft the clause, I would include that in it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome the general support offered by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the surcharge. Indeed, I felt that there was support around the House for the surcharge in principle; it is just on implementation and the practicalities that the Government are quite properly being challenged.
The Home Office, which is responsible for administering the health charge, but not for spending the money, will be open and transparent about the operation of the surcharge. As my noble friend Lord Howe set out in his letter to all noble Lords last week—I hope it helped; it was designed to try to put these changes to the law in the context of wider health service reforms—the surcharge income will be allocated directly to the National Health Service across the UK. Allocation will be in accordance with the Barnett formula.
The dear and much-loved noble Lord is not in his place, but much as he seeks to see the end of his legacy in establishing the formula, it is still widely used in government and it seems the most appropriate way of ensuring that the money goes to the NHS. It will go to the NHS—the National Health Service—not to any other agency offering healthcare in this country. How the NHS spends it is for the Department of Health, of course, and the devolved Health Ministers, because health services are a devolved matter. The allocation of the money will be made by affirmative order, so we will have control here in Parliament of how this is finally resolved.
I note what my noble friend Lady Barker said in speaking to her amendment. While the Home Office already has a well established procedure through which it is accountable to Parliament, I appreciate that this House would benefit from the means to scrutinise the impact of the surcharge. I am therefore prepared to make a Statement to this House to provide information about the Home Office’s administration of the surcharge within 12 months of it going live. I hope that that will give some assurance to noble Lords on how the surcharge is working.
It may include details such as the number of migrants who pay the surcharge and the total amount of surcharge collected and directed to the National Health Service. I believe that this sort of transparency is important, and the Statement will provide proper transparency and provide the House with the necessary flexibility in scrutinising the surcharge scheme. Furthermore, any future changes to the core operating principles of the surcharge, including the amount to be paid, will have to be agreed by both Houses under an affirmative resolution procedure.
On Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we intend to do our utmost to ensure that visa applicants understand the purpose of the surcharge and how it might apply to them. We will make the information available to individuals, including through our website and visa application centres. Indeed, the visa application form is where most people encounter this surcharge because it is directed only at those applying for a visa for a stay of six months or more. The form itself will explain it.
My noble friend Lord Attlee has pointed out in conversation that universities themselves might like to promote the student surcharge as being a very competitive offer at £150; it certainly is a bargain in global terms. However, it would be most unfair to ask migrants to pay a surcharge that they know nothing about. Both the reasons it is being charged and what it gives migrants access to are very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the Department of Health will publish its detailed implementation plan for patient registration and identification. If I say “shortly”, he will know that that word is used regularly enough. We do not have an exact date, but it will be shortly. He also asked how the transitional provisions would be set out and how a hospital will know if a person is a transitional case. This will be done in the order implementing the surcharge. We will use the patient registration system to flag people who have paid the surcharge. We will consider doing so also for those who benefit from the transitional arrangements. The simple production of a visa or biometric residence permit—BRP—that is current and valid will give evidence of free entitlement to the NHS, and transitional cases will be identifiable because their entry clearance or BRP will be dated before the commencement of the surcharge scheme, which will be known.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked about the costs of implementing the health charge and whether we have done a cost-benefit analysis. We have indeed. The Home Office has produced a full impact assessment on the Bill. It is available on the Immigration Bill page of the gov.uk website.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about treatments for infectious conditions, such as HIV and TB, for example. They are free, and will remain so. It was this Government who abolished the NHS treatment charges for HIV.
I hope that I have answered most of the points. I will go through the record and see whether there are aspects that I have not addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is looking particularly questioning. Can she remind me of what I have missed?
Lord Avebury
My Lords, when the noble Lord is replying on that point, will he deal with story of the 300 maternity patients who were alleged to have been treated at St Thomas’s hospital? When we last discussed this, the allegation was found to have been apocryphal. I would be grateful if the Minister would repudiate it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would not wish to get involved in hearsay or gossip or, indeed, the suggestion that some of this stuff is just newspaper chat. I will get back to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with a reasoned reply explaining the Government’s analysis of the situation. However, the purpose of this measure is not to do with health tourism at all; it is to do with providing a charge whereby people who stay here for more than six months make a contribution to the NHS. It will make it more difficult for people who are not entitled to access healthcare to do so, but that is a secondary purpose.
Baroness Meacher
Perhaps I might ask for clarification on one point. The Minister skated rather quickly over that fact that “it” will be explained on the visa application form. I wonder what “it” refers to. Will it spell out clearly that all health services freely available to permanent residents will also be available to the applicant as somebody who has paid the surcharge?
My second question concerns people with infectious diseases who may not have paid the surcharge but who will be entitled to free treatment for an infectious disease. What sort of action will the Government take to inform them of their entitlements?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The latter point is more difficult to answer positively; it is something which my noble friend Lord Howe would be in a position to reply to with authority. On the first point, I think that the wording which the noble Baroness suggested is particularly good. It sums up the policy as I have tried to describe it to the Committee.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which was far more helpful than I had expected. Perhaps I may press him a little further and ask whether he would be prepared to make not just a one-off Statement to the House about the introduction but perhaps to do so annually, or more than once, so that we can have comparative data in different years. That would give us a slightly more robust evidence base than we would have by having just a one-off Statement in the year after a measure has been brought in. A fair amount of information and attention would, presumably, attend its introduction.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I start from the position that an informed House is better able to make decisions and judgments on issues. Having said that, I am not sure that I could commit to making a periodic Statement on this issue, although I know that the Home Office will always respond to questions that might seek updated information of this type, and indeed there are other ways in which this House has the capacity to bring the Government to account on policy. At least by promising this Statement I am giving an indication that we are confident that this particular measure will be a success and raise money for the National Health Service, which will be to the advantage of the taxpayers of this country and a bargain for migrants to this country. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that point.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is reassured. However, I think that the Committee would also be glad to know—I do not expect the Minister to pin down the detail tonight—the range of issues that will be covered by a Statement. That addresses my noble friend’s point about the data which will be collected. We were quite rightly reminded about the costs of the services, which have not been included in our list. I am sure that there are other points as well. It is the detail that is important and that noble Lords will be interested to know. Perhaps I may leave that with the Minister as something to think about after this stage.
Lord Rosser
I, too, thank the Minister for his response. I am in much the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in the sense that it went rather further than I thought it would go, so I genuinely thank the Minister for what he had to say in his reply. I am also sure that the Minister might wish to reflect on the number of points that have been made after he sat down. Bearing in mind that he has said that he will send a letter to pick up any points he has not covered, perhaps he will reflect further on some of the points that have been raised in the past few minutes.
I do not expect the Minister to respond to the questions now because he has said that he will write a letter. He has certainly not responded to some of the issues that I raised but I accept that he will do so in the letter. One of those issues, of course, is why it does not say in the Bill that the money will go to the NHS—why not put that in there? We are not proposing, are we, that the National Health Service will be disappearing within the next few years, so it is not the usual argument that you do not want to put this in the Bill because it might not be there for very long? Or at least I hope that that is not the point. I have not received a specific response yet, but I know that I will when the Minister sends the letter about whether this will be additional money to the National Health Service or whether it will simply be used to reduce the amount that the Government provide.
Lord Rosser
I also asked about whether there would be any transitional costs as opposed to transitional arrangements. I take it that the Minister will respond to that question, too.
The Minister will be aware that doctors and other parts of the health service have expressed a view that the kind of checks they will have to make will be an administrative burden. I asked a couple of questions about whether a hospital, if a patient has been referred to it by a doctor, can assume that the doctor has done the check and not have to do a double-check, and how a GP can know whether a patient who is already in the country, and therefore not covered by these new arrangements, requires a renewed application to remain here. I am sure that that will be picked up in the Minister’s reply.
My general point—bearing in mind that some doctors have expressed a concern about what they feel will be an administrative burden, and that the Minister has said that a Statement will be made to Parliament—is whether the Statement will also cover whether the arrangements have imposed an administrative burden on doctors. As some doctors have raised the issue, this would be one way of getting an analysis of it and discovering whether there is any substance to it, or whether their fears have not been realised. Perhaps the Minister can also comment on that point when he sends the letter. Once again I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very reasoned debate and I am pleased that we have had a chance to return to it. It has taken us slightly further along the track than the legislation takes us, but that is a feature of where we are. We have an Immigration Bill, a Home Office measure, that is designed to provide for a surcharge, which in turn is to provide free healthcare for those covered by the surcharge, and we have the health service itself, under the Department of Health, looking at ways in which it can more effectively recover sums that are due, under current legislation, from visitors—and, for that matter, illegal migrants and the like—to see how that can fit in with all the other considerations; public health has been mentioned, as well as the vulnerability of some of the patients who present themselves who may have become victims through no fault of their own and need proper medical attention. Those two things are going on at the same time. I suspect that at bottom that is why we are finding it a bit difficult to discuss this issue.
If I may, I will turn to the Bill itself to start with, as that is the most important thing. I am aware that I speak for the Government and I cannot say, “Well, this is my dear noble friend Lord Howe’s responsibility”, so I will do my best to integrate into one proposal both the Bill and the health service reforms. I reassure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill that will impact on the current arrangement for migrants in any of the areas covered by these amendments that have been debated this evening. Our intention is that the payment of the surcharge, which takes place when people make an immigration application, will entitle migrants to free access to the NHS in the same way as a permanent resident. This will include treatment for injuries sustained as a result of domestic violence, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned, or female genital mutilation, which was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Finlay. It will also include mental health, to reassure my noble friend Lady Barker, and maternity services, as we discussed when we were debating previous amendments. We have also committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, to exempting victims of human trafficking. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there is no charge for anyone in detention accessing NHS healthcare.
Secondly—this is the second element of the debate—as my noble friend Lord Howe set out in his recent letter to noble Lords, the Bill does not make any changes to the way in which short-term visitors and, for that matter, illegal migrants access medical care. Any NHS charging exemptions for health purposes for these groups are a matter for the Department of Health and, within their devolved remit, the devolved Administrations. Within the framework of government, they are not the responsibility of the Home Office.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked me how we will ensure that NHS staff can effectively identify potential victims of trafficking. The Department of Health already identifies patients who are victims or potential victims of human trafficking in order to waive treatment charges. We will work closely with the Department of Health on this matter in order to ensure that proper guidance and training are provided to NHS staff. I am not convinced that the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness are necessary.
I was asked why the national referral mechanism was not put on a statutory footing. It was set up to ensure that victims of human trafficking are identified and given the support they need. We want to make sure that the NRM is working as effectively and supportively as possible, and healthcare is part of that mechanism. That is why the National Health Service announced a review of the NRM on 3 December. It will commence shortly, and we await it.
The Department of Health has already confirmed that it will be exempting certain treatments from charging, including GP and nurse consultations, specified infectious diseases—we have talked about HIV and tuberculosis—and sexually transmitted infections. This will ensure that everyone has unrestricted access to prompt diagnosis and intervention and that public health is safeguarded.
The Department of Health has, however, signalled an intention to introduce overseas visitor charges for some primary care services, including A&E, as part of its extensive reform of NHS charging in England. It is carrying out detailed analysis to inform decisions in this area. I am confident that cost-effectiveness—noble Lords mentioned some of the consequences of poor primary care leading to complications that can be very expensive as a consequence—public health and the moral case for protecting vulnerable groups will remain key factors in this consideration. I can reassure noble Lords that any agreed changes will be put to Parliament in the form of revised NHS charging regulations. That is not an unusual situation. We are talking about a consultation. This aspect of health service reform is not appropriate in an Immigration Bill because it is not about immigration but the practice of charging within the health service.
Without getting involved in the argument as to whether that is the right or wrong thing to be doing, as we know, we have all been fortunate to grow up in a world in which, for most of us, all healthcare—well, not all healthcare; not dental care and things like that—has been free at the point of use. That is a remarkable privilege, but it is an expense and one has to argue whether the resources are properly justified if they are extended to visitors, for example, or illegal migrants. That is not an unreasonable position to take.
Baroness Meacher
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He understandably said that this was a matter for the Department of Health and therefore not really appropriate for discussion here. Can he assure the Committee that we will therefore have another opportunity to influence the design of these regulations, which will indeed determine whether people suffering with FGM, domestic violence and so forth will be excluded from health charges or not? That is a matter of great concern to many of us. If we cannot discuss it here, will there be another opportunity?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is why I am going to try to address some of these matters. It is right to seek to do so, allowing for the limitations of my knowledge in this area, which I hope that noble Lords will understand.
This House has a good reputation for debating these sorts of things not, if I may say so, through the statutory instrument process so much as generally. I am absolutely certain that my noble friend Lord Howe would be quite prepared to come at a suitable point during the consultation to discuss the basis of changes that would be made. I am sure that I am not losing a friend for life by committing him to do just that.
As if to show that I need to brush up a little bit, apparently I may not have said, through mis-speaking or a slip of the tongue, that the Home Secretary announced the review of the NRM. I thought that I had implied that, but if I had not, I should have done so. Let us hope that I do not fall out with another friend for not crediting the Home Secretary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about training for the enforcement of new NHS rules, and also about the Modern Slavery Bill which, as noble Lords know, is in pre-legislative scrutiny. The Department of Health will publish its implementation plan on the health service rules during the course of this year. The Modern Slavery Bill will be a fourth Session measure. I must not anticipate the Queen’s Speech, but the fact that that Bill is going through pre-legislative scrutiny rather suggests that it will be in the fourth Session legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about a victim of FGM who has infected wounds. Under the NHS charging regulations and policy, immediate necessary treatment is not held up because of charging. I think that the noble Baroness has enough experience of how the health service operates charging principles, and I do not think that that is likely to change. GP care is not charged for, as I have said. The Department of Health is reviewing provisions for vulnerable individuals under these NHS regulations.
The noble Baroness asked why we were planning to charge migrants for accident and emergency services. Surcharge payers will obviously not have to pay for A&E services. The Department of Health has indicated that there is a good case for introducing overseas visitor charges for A&E, for those short-term visitors and illegal migrants who do not pay the surcharge. It is giving this detailed consideration, but will not make any changes unless it is confident that the new systems will work well without compromising rapid access to emergency care for those in immediate or urgent need, which will never be withheld or delayed pending payment. However, as I said, that is not a matter for the Bill. It is part of the review into regulations which is going on at the moment.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked whether those exempted from the charges will be exempted from NHS charges. Our policy intention is that those who are exempt from the surcharge will also be exempt from subsequent National Health Service charging for health services under NHS regulations. However, obviously they will be liable for dentistry; as I mentioned before, at the moment that is not free other than in exceptional cases.
Under the Bill it is possible for surcharge payers to be charged for certain expensive discretionary treatments —I think we have discussed that already. However, we have made it clear that we intend that no such additional charges will apply when the surcharge is introduced. The Department of Health has made it clear that it would consider those in the future only in the event of any exceptional and compelling specific justification for health purposes, and, as I have already said, any changes would need to be put before Parliament.
My noble friend welcomed the exemptions, but those refused asylum will face charges, as will most victims of trafficking who are not recognised through the national referral mechanism. I emphasise to my noble friend that refused asylum seekers will not pay a surcharge. Health charging for refused asylum seekers is a matter for the Department of Health and the devolved health administrations within its remit. We have already confirmed that trafficking victims will not have to pay the surcharge.
The NRM is the only process by which an individual can be formally identified as a victim of trafficking and matched with appropriate support. Someone who has not been identified as a victim through the NRM and who is an illegal migrant or visitor would not be covered by the exemption for NHS charging under the existing regime. However, the NHS can write off NHS debts if individuals are subsequently identified as victims of trafficking, so there is a retrospective exemption in that regard.
The Department of Health has committed to give further thought to strengthening exemptions in the current NHS charging regulations for vulnerable groups, including victims of trafficking. We want to make sure that the NRM works effectively, which is why the Home Secretary has commissioned the review.
My noble friend asked whether those who come on a visa, pay the levy—or the surcharge, as it is properly called—and are later refused an extension will still get free NHS treatment while waiting for an administrative review decision, and asked about a period for which the paid levy has expired. This is about people and their leave to remain. Those individuals will continue to receive free NHS treatment as part of the conditions of their extant leave. Where individuals had leave, alongside which they paid the surcharge when they applied for an extension and applied for an administrative review within the specified time limit for doing so, their leave will be extended on the same conditions under Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 until their administrative review is decided.
My noble friend asked what would happen if their review is refused and they bring a human rights appeal. Once an administrative review is refused a migrant will be liable for NHS overseas visitor charging unless they fall under one of the exemptions set out in NHS charging regulations. That will be commensurate with their immigration status.
A number of noble Lords were concerned about GP consultations being free—I think that that is widely understood—but what about treatment? We intend for surcharge payers to receive most treatment free, as would any other UK citizen or person with indefinite leave to remain. We have made that clear in all the responses that I have given. They will be charged only for services for which permanent residents are also charged. As part of its work to reform the charging regime in England, the Department of Health has signalled an intent to extend charging for short-term visitors and illegal migrants to some primary care services, excluding GP consultations. It is carrying out a detailed analysis to inform decisions in this area, and any agreed changes will be put to Parliament.
I was asked by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to give an assurance that the Home Office would not be permitted to use access to healthcare as a means for it to identify and take action against those subject to immigration controls. Healthcare staff are not routinely required to inform the Home Office on issues to do with individuals’ immigration status, and there is no plan to change this. However, there are circumstances where it is appropriate for the NHS to pass information to the Home Office, such as for enforcing the NHS debtors rule, which is a current rule under which migrants who have run up an unpaid debt of £1,000 or more are not given permission to enter the UK while the debt remains unpaid.
Finally, I hope that I have answered the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Barker on mental health and such matters. She made a valuable contribution to the debate.
I turn to the challenges presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked, “What is success?” Success might be the £2 billion surcharge income for the NHS, which is a large sum of money even in a health service budget running to several hundred thousand million pounds. An additional £500 million will be recovered in treatment charges each year through better administration, plus the surcharge, and vulnerable groups will be protected and treated. Part of the consideration of the NHS review and the provisions of the Bill are to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected. There is no adverse impact on public health, and there is a fairer set of rules and arrangements, which command public support. Those are the basic challenges that face us in seeking to reform charging within the health service.
I reiterate that the introduction of the surcharge in the Bill will give those who are obliged to pay it—and they are obliged to pay it—the peace of mind that they will receive comprehensive NHS treatment when needed. But charging for short-term visitors and illegal migrants remains the responsibility of the Department of Health, and it is not dealt with in the context of this Bill.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I know that health is not his subject, but he has given an excellent response to those of us who speak fluent NHS and know all the language. I thank him for the detail of his response, but I ask him to write to me on two points. First, on my point about charging for diagnostic tests, I understand the point about people paying the levy having to pay for the same things as people who are resident and about the exemptions for some categories of people and some conditions, such as infectious diseases. But there are some conditions—for example, diabetes—where you have to have a diagnostic test. It is important that people know that they are diabetic and that healthcare workers know that those people are diabetic, because if it goes untreated there may be further consequences.
Secondly, I seek clarification on the important matter raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee on whether initial consultations with GPs would be free and subsequent consultations would be charged for or whether all consultations with a GP practice’s staff would be free. I do not want to detain the Committee now but if the Minister could answer those two questions in writing, it would go a considerable way towards allaying anxieties in that regard.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I give that commitment. I will, of course, write on that. I will also go through the debate as other questions may have not have been answered, for which I apologise. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, nods, so I clearly forgot to answer one of hers. However, I will go through the debate and answer all the questions as best I can. Indeed, my officials will talk to officials at the Department of Health as some of these matters are the responsibility of that department, as we have already discussed. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her kind words.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his thoughtful response. He was able to give us some reassurance on some points. I think that there are still a lot of gaps, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to some of the points in writing. I am very grateful to him for his kind offer in regard to his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, meeting us. I assume I am right in saying that the Minister’s office will be in touch with the office of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to set up such a meeting because I think that it is only in that forum that we can achieve clarity about some of the most important and concerning issues to do with health charges and these vulnerable groups. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, we are talking about the victims of criminal offences.
There is much to thank the Minister for, but we will have to read the debate carefully and think about Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that residential landlords very often, particularly in Greater London, go to some length to seek out companies and embassies as tenants for their properties. That in itself constitutes discrimination against the ordinary individual or family. I agreed with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, particularly when she referred to the unintended consequences that are likely to affect black and coloured citizens of this country as a knock-on effect of what is intended to deal only with migrants. This category will include citizen students who come from British ethnic minorities. The noble Baroness was quite right to go on to mention lodgers. I would much prefer that Clause 15 did not stand part. If it has to be in the Bill at least there should be a carefully designed and carefully evaluated pilot project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may start by talking about the pilot. A number of noble Lords have expressed interest in a pilot and I can see its significance.
The Government have made public commitments in relation to the implementation of these provisions and have reiterated those commitments in correspondence with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government’s intention is that the provisions relating to landlords and their agents will be subject to a phased implementation on a geographical basis. This will allow a proper evaluation of the scheme to ensure that it delivers its objectives without unintended consequences such as discrimination. Noble Lords are quite right to emphasise their concerns and I recognise that it is up to me to reassure noble Lords on that point. Through the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I heard from Crisis directly when we had meetings with parties interested in this provision.
Discrimination is one factor and increased difficulties in the vulnerable accessing accommodation is another. We intend to work with bodies such as crisis in conducting the evaluation. It will not be an evaluation in which the Government examine their proposals on their own in isolation. The first phase and evaluation will also enable the Government to develop and deliver suitable support services for landlords and tenants, a point made by a number of noble Lords.
The Government have agreed that we will initiate the first phase from October 2014; that a formal evaluation will be produced; and that decisions on implementing the scheme more generally will be taken in the next Parliament on the basis of this proper evaluation. Implementation beyond the initial phase will be via a negative resolution order, enabling a debate to be triggered in both Houses of Parliament at that stage if there remain concerns following the initial phase.
These carefully constructed commencement provisions are already provided for in Clause 67. The proposed new clause goes no further. It would require Parliament to debate not only the wider rollout but also the establishment of the initial phase, and it would require all this to take place during the current Parliament rather than the more careful approach we have set out, which involves an initial phase and evaluation during this Parliament, with decisions to be taken on wider implementation under the next Parliament on the basis of a proper evaluation. We believe that this latter approach, which is provided for in the Bill, is the right one.
The commencement provisions in Clause 67 indicate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that, should it wish to do so, Parliament may scrutinise the implementation of the scheme following the initial rollout and before the subsequent stage commences. Any commencement order which brings the landlord provisions into operation in a subsequent area following the initial rollout will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The House will be able to trigger a debate regarding the further rollout of the measures and any questions can then be addressed.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising their concerns by way of these amendments, which are intended to be helpful and to improve the operation of the proposed landlord scheme. I recognise the particular concern that has been raised about the risk of unlawful discrimination. The Government are clear that race discrimination is unlawful, unacceptable and should be confronted.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 50B, 51B, 51C, 51D and 54ZA. This group of amendments takes us to the type of accommodation. Amendment 50A deals with a point that has been referred to already—that is, where there is no exclusive right of occupation.
The Minister has referred a number of times to the known unknowns, or the unknown knowns. I think there may be a lot of unknown unknowns in this, and my amendment asks whether the Government are confident that arrangements can work where what comes within the definition of a tenancy is, as we have heard, not what one normally understands to be a tenancy, such as lodgers and all sorts of licences which are not exclusive licences. A lot people live in premises on an informal basis, which is hardly the ideal home, but they may be the only residents, and that is what brings the accommodation into the Bill. Noble Lords have already referred to whether a landlord will go through the checks, whether discrimination will be fed and whether an underground black market will be created. Amendments 55B and 55D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, address similar points.
The Minister told us not that long ago that there would be a range of penalties. He talked about £80 perhaps going up to £500 for multiple offences and £1,000 going up to £3,000. I am not sure whether I got his words quite correctly, but he referred to something like a proper mechanism for evaluating the level of the fine. I do not know whether he is in a position to say a little more about what the mechanisms for evaluating the level will be. It is clear that the Government have given this some thought. Indeed, it was referred to in the evidence session of the Public Bill Committee by the representative of one of the landlords organisations. She said,
“we do not agree with the proposed disparity in penalties””.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee 29/10/13; col. 56.]
That is not my point. I just want to get some clarity as soon as we can on this.
Amendment 50B would preclude the Secretary of State reducing the types of excluded—which I find quite a difficult term in this context—premises which do not come within the scheme.
Amendments 51B, 51C and 51D relate to the way in which refuges are defined in Schedule 3. I am delighted that refuges are now within the schedule. My amendments would be refinements. The schedule does not at the moment take account of the fact that costs may be provided by a voluntary organisation or charity. The term is simply “operated”. The Bill states,
“its costs of operation are provided wholly or in part by a government department or agency, or by a local authority … it is managed by a voluntary organisation”.
There are a variety of models. A hostel may be owned by a voluntary organisation and the provisions seem to stand being reread and made as extensive as they are in practice.
Amendment 51D would extend the group of those who might benefit from the provision from being simply those who have been subject to an incident or pattern of incidents of the behaviour spelt out to those who are threatened with or avoiding such behaviour or who might be subject to it. It is looking ahead to prevention, as it were.
I accept that it would be unusual for somebody to flee without actually having been subject to some of the behaviour that is listed here, but I want to ensure that we are as inclusive as possible. No one seeks a place in a refuge. Nor, indeed, would a refuge, the places in which are in short supply, provide a place lightly. We should not add to the difficulties of someone seeking refuge, nor to those of the refuge operator. I should perhaps declare an interest as having been chair of Refuge for some years. I would be concerned if the operators of refuges had to interrogate their prospective clients in the way that this clause might suggest.
Finally, Amendment 54ZA would add holiday and short-term business lettings to the excluded premises. I am probing here because of the amount of administration required; the Minister may disagree with that, given his earlier comments. However, I think that most noble Lords see the Bill as requiring a lot of administration. I hesitated before tabling this amendment, because I would not like to think that it might mean taking the use of accommodation as a home out of the ordinary private rented sector. I mention that in order to try to avoid the criticism, but also to probe the point that holiday and short-term business lettings may be excluded by Clause 15(4), which refers to,
“their only or main residence”.
Perhaps the Minister can help me on that one. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I shall jump in quickly on this. I hope we can move this debate on because I think I can satisfy my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the points that she has raised.
Amendments 50A and 50B would exclude temporary living arrangements from the scheme and prevent the Secretary of State from removing living arrangements from the excluded list once added. In relation to the first point, I draw attention to Clause 15(4), which sets out that the restriction on letting will apply only to agreements which allow a person to occupy the premises as their only or main residence. Further, Clause 27 provides for the Secretary of State to set out in a code of practice the factors she considers when determining whether someone is occupying premises on this basis, and provide guidance relating to holiday lettings or lettings connected with business travel in particular. In relation to Amendment 54ZA, the Government have no intention of requiring a status check where these circumstances pertain.
Further, while other temporary living arrangements such as hostels and refuges are expressly excluded from the scheme by Schedule 3, excluding other instances of multiple occupations will simply undermine the scheme. I am looking carefully at Amendment 50B. This would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to amend the provisions in Schedule 3 in the future, so that she could not remove a description from the list. It may assist my noble friend if I clarify that the intention of this provision is not to allow the Secretary of State to reduce the scope of the exemptions from the scheme in the future: exemptions have been provided for arrangements which ensure important services can be provided to the vulnerable, and where the restriction would impose a double or disproportionate regulatory burden.
Careful consideration has been given to the drafting of the exclusions, and consultation has taken place with stakeholders. However, once the scheme is in operation the exclusions may need to be amended to ensure that they are and remain appropriately targeted. I am afraid that our experience is that circumstances may change over time and that many illegal immigrants will seek to exploit what they see as loopholes in the law. It is surely appropriate, particularly as the initial phase of rollout is to be evaluated, to allow the Secretary of State to address abuse where it may arise, sometimes of course through displacement.
On Amendments 51B and 51C, accommodation provided by charities or voluntary organisations in the form of refuges and hostels is already excluded. Similarly, Amendment 51D will achieve no more than the draft paragraph already provides in relation to excluding refuge accommodation provided to those suffering from or threatened with abusive behaviour. The Government have taken a great deal of care here and have discussed this paragraph in some depth with two leading organisations that provide such accommodation.
I hope that in light of those points I have been able to satisfy my noble friend. If not, I hope that she will come back to me after Committee so that we have the chance to talk about it. I hope that she will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, on Amendment 50B, if the objective is to allow refinement rather than wholesale change, I hope that we may look at refining the provision so that that is quite clear in the Bill. Yes, I would welcome a further word on Amendments 51B and 51C. On Amendment 50A, sadly, some lodgers and some sofa surfers are using friends’ or—I do not know what the term is—lodging-providers’ premises as their only or main residence. That is an outcome of homelessness. Therefore I hear what the noble Lord says about the intention, but I am not sure that it quite meets the point that I am making. However, obviously at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 52 I will speak also to Amendments 52A, 53 and 54. At this time of day I feel as though I am trying to hit a moving target to some degree with these amendments. I heard what the Minister had to say about the concessions he has given as regards rejigging the exemption for residential property occupied by students, where it is owned, managed or arranged directly by a higher education institution so that there will be no need for further checks. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I, too, look forward to reading Hansard tomorrow to clarify what the Minister has given by way of an assurance on that. However, I am pretty sure that these amendments—subject to reading Hansard—go rather wider than the concessions that the Minister has given. They derive from the concerns that I, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and many noble Lords expressed at Second Reading and continue to do so about the requirement for landlords to check a prospective overseas student’s immigration status prior to renting accommodation to them.
Universities UK and many student bodies have expressed their concerns extremely cogently. Universities UK says that, while acknowledging that some student accommodation will be exempt, it is deeply concerned, as are we, that these measures will discourage landlords from letting accommodation to international students and staff or those who appear to be from outside the UK, particularly at peak times when they are under pressure to make decisions quickly. Secondly, Universities UK says that the measures may leave international students and staff unable to secure accommodation before their arrival in the UK. Given that many international students are young and living away from home for the first time, this could cause considerable anxiety, and could add to the perception that the UK is unwelcoming. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, made that point in the previous debate. I note the Minister’s assurance in his subsequent correspondence that this can be done on a conditional basis, but this will not be attractive to landlords who will have to take the risk that the relevant visa or residence permit will eventually be produced. The lack of certainty is the next issue posed by Universities UK, which says that the lack of certainty provided by a residential tenancy may also prove a significant barrier to non-EU staff looking to move to the UK to work in our universities. This uncertainty could be a particular disincentive to those with children. Finally, Universities UK says that exemptions for halls of residence are welcome, but it is not clear that they will cover the wide variety of arrangements between universities and privately owned student accommodation. Of course, that is the objection that I believe my noble friend has addressed in his last statement. We will examine that carefully. That is only one of the four arguments that Universities UK puts that the Minister has addressed.
Amendments 52 and 52A provide alternative ways in which to ensure that prospective tenants holding tier 4 visas who could demonstrate that they hold a certificate of acceptance of studies from a university will be exempt from further checks of their immigration status. Amendments 53 and 54 would broaden the scope of the exemption for halls of residence, which will not be subject to the residential tenancy measures.
International students already face difficulties in securing accommodation and are often made to pay large advance payments of rent. Bookings of accommodation for students often have to be made well in advance at a time when overseas students cannot prove their immigration status. Landlords will be discouraged from letting accommodation to international students and staff and they will be relegated to the back of the queue in the search for accommodation. How can causing this kind of barrier and concern to young people coming here for the first time be the right way to welcome them? How will this lack of certainty encourage overseas academic staff to come and work in our universities?
The fear of the student bodies that have briefed Members of this House is that this will lead to more discrimination against black and ethnic minority students when looking for housing. Liberty believes so too, citing the National Landlords Association and the UK Association of Letting Agents, which both expressed concerns to the Public Bill Committee that the Bill could impact on ethnic minorities. Indeed, as Liberty also says, the very inclusion of Clause 28, which requires the Home Secretary to produce a code of practice on how landlords should avoid contravening the Equality Act 2010, is tacit acceptance that the policy will encourage unlawful discrimination.
Why are additional provisions required for students? International students are already subject to extensive checks prior to arrival in the UK and require a certificate of acceptance of studies from a higher education institution. Surely being vouched for by their university when the accommodation is occupied should be enough. After all, the risk of losing highly trusted sponsor status, as the NUS has said, means that higher education institutions are now scrupulous in their monitoring of overseas students. The Residential Landlords Association and the British Property Federation have pointed out the problems with the latter, in particular stating that the proposals constitute a disproportionate burden on the landlord and tenant compared to their likely outcome for immigration control. In the NUS survey this month, 40% of international students believe that these landlord checks will negatively impact on their decision to study in the UK—and more in the case of PhD students concerned about spouse and children.
I believe that overseas students should be specifically exempt from these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think that most of us have spent all day trying to catch up and find out where we are. The day started off with a considerable readjustment of groupings, which has meant that sometimes matters which were going to be discussed at one point were discussed at another. I apologise if that has sometimes meant that our debates may have appeared a little disjointed.
I am sure that, in moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones had not anticipated that I would be in a position to make an announcement. Although he says that it does not meet all the points that Universities UK has suggested, I think that it goes a very long way towards it. At bottom, it succeeds in making it plain that, where the university itself is responsible for arranging a student’s accommodation, be that a student coming to this country for the first time and making accommodation arrangements ahead of time, or a student already at the university who needs accommodation, they will be excluded from any further checks. I believe that this is a considerable step forward. I am pleased that I have had an opportunity to make the point again because throughout these debates we have said that we welcome the brightest and the best students. There is no limit on numbers and we are very pleased to see overseas students coming to study at our higher education institutions.
Lawful students should not be deterred by the provisions in the Bill. We need to make sure that those do not get in the way of them coming to this country. They are not designed adversely to affect students during their stay here. I understand the reasoning behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. We do not want to have to check the immigration status of any person more than once. Educational institutions already conduct checks of students as part of their obligations as sponsors of non-EEA migrants. They have taken a position of responsibility in respect of their students which we would like to reinforce by the amendments that we will bring forward on Report to extend their responsibilities in this regard. If accommodation is controlled by a registered educational institution, we agree that the tenancy should be exempt from any further checking requirement. The Government intend to bring forward an amendment on Report to broaden this exemption to cover a wider range of circumstances where student accommodation is arranged by the university or college.
I know that noble Lords are concerned about other matters and want to talk about other impacts of the Bill on students in general. When we had the previous debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I indicated that I thought it would be good to have a further discussion with him. I want to make sure that we get these matters right, and it is most important that by Report we will have made every effort to do so as a result of contributions made by noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps I may raise one issue for the Minister to consider before Report. Before I do so, I should say that I very much welcome the Government revisiting this issue but, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, it does not sound as if it is going to go as far as we would like.
One of the areas in which we would go further is on whether the premises are within the control of the university or college. We are looking at this matter from the student’s point of view. My noble friend Lady Manzoor, who will jump because I have mentioned her, said to me the other day that she thinks that a landlord needs to see evidence that the tenant is a student for council tax purposes. If that were so, it would go a long way towards dealing with any potential abuse. Can I leave that with the Minister to consider? Perhaps a bit of lateral thinking there might help to reassure the Government as regards the rather more extensive amendments that we are proposing.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It may be late but it is not too late to hear an idea that is worth considering, and I am grateful for that suggestion.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I can understand that it must be slightly frustrating to have to keep re-replying and repeating assurances, but that is the way in which the groupings have worked today.
I appreciate the concession that the Government have made and no doubt will be bringing back but we will obviously need to see the small print. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is correct: I suspect that the concession will not go as far as we would want because not all accommodation for overseas students is arranged, owned or managed by universities. However, we will no doubt take advice from UUK as to whether the concession really does move us a long way forward or whether a substantial amount of accommodation for overseas students would not be covered by it.
I took heart from the Minister’s statement that the Government did not want a situation whereby the immigration status of students, having been checked by the educational institutions, was then checked by landlords. If that is the general principle, it sounds as if we are making real progress in this part of the Bill. I look forward to seeing the text of the amendment that the Minister brings forward on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, in listening to my noble friend Lord Patel’s concerns, which I share very strongly, about children and the charging of children, it occurred to me that there might also be an issue about the immunisation of children. If significant numbers of children do not get immunised, that might pose a threat. I would appreciate the Minister addressing that question in his reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very full discussion about all aspects of healthcare and healthcare charging, some of which lie within the provisions of the Bill and some of which lie way beyond it and are actually part of the Department of Health’s consultation. I guess there are two ways of dealing with this debate: I can give either the short answer or the long answer. I have chosen to give the long answer—I hope that noble Lords will indulge me—in the hope that I will be able to disabuse them of some of their anxieties and reassure them. I am very mindful of the kind words from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but I am also slightly anxious as a result of the description of my noble friend Lord Howe. I am equally concerned to try to be as upfront as I can be about what the Bill provides for and to reinforce my noble friend’s letter, which noble Lords will have received, which seeks to place measures in this Bill in the context of wider health service charging.
Perhaps it would be helpful to provide a brief reminder of the intentions behind Clauses 33 and 34. I will refer to my noble friend Lord Howe’s letter because it sets out the context for these provisions, which is the Department of Health’s wider programme of work on migrant access and financial contributions to the NHS. Likewise, I want to reassure noble Lords that, first and foremost, the NHS is, and will remain, free at the point of delivery for permanent residents. But it is a national service, not an international health service. We believe that migrants should have a form of access to the NHS that is commensurate with their immigration status. That is our policy position.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
Does the Minister agree that they should be working together in maternity cases? It is health but it is immigration as well.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that I will be able to go on and talk about these matters when I address the specific amendments. I hope that when I have concluded my remarks, the noble Baroness will feel that I have indeed satisfied her in that respect. I understand the vulnerability of pregnant women and the care that is needed to ensure that both mother and child have healthy prospects.
The health surcharge is designed to ensure that legal migrants make a fair contribution to the NHS, commensurate with their immigration status. We intend for it to be applied fairly and without unintended consequences. As I have just said to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pregnant women should not be adversely affected—I listened with great care to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and to subsequent speeches on this subject. However, it is important to consider the safeguards already provided in the Bill.
In respect of the provisions relating to landlords, there are exclusions from the restrictions in accessing accommodation at Schedule 3 to the Bill to protect the vulnerable. Local or housing authorities providing accommodation in discharging a statutory duty—for example, under national assistance or children’s legislation—are not subject to these restrictions.
Asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who face recognised barriers to return will be authorised to rent property by the Home Office, and the department will continue to support destitute applicants. Accommodation for vulnerable individuals, such as hostels for the homeless and refuges for victims of violence, will also be exempt from the checking requirements—I mention these because the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly expressed concern about the vulnerable and I shall address her amendments later.
We need to consider the checks that would be required by some of the amendments. These would be intrusive; indeed, it would be objectionable to ask all temporary female migrants of childbearing age if they were pregnant and to verify that information. How could the Home Office or a service provider establish that an individual was indeed pregnant rather than merely seeking to circumvent the rules? Rather than a simple check of documentation, which is what the Bill provides for, inquiries would need to be directed to the individual’s health provider. We must also consider the unintended distress that such a practice could cause. What if a woman was reluctant to reveal a pregnancy? What if she suffered a miscarriage while her visa or other applications were being considered? She would no longer be exempt; she would need to tell us of her loss at a time of great distress. The more one looks into the detail of this and the practical application of the policy, the more the intrusive nature of these amendments becomes clear.
Some of the amendments would allow pregnant women who were illegal migrants to rent accommodation, open bank accounts and hold driving licences. As such, they would help them establish a life in the UK. However, they would also create a dangerous loophole through which illegal migrant women might be encouraged or pressurised into becoming pregnant so that they could rent accommodation or open a bank account for themselves or their family members. We surely cannot introduce legislation that places women at risk of such exploitation.
Before turning to the particular amendments, I shall address some of the questions that have been asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me about the health consultation. The Bill provides that certain expensive treatments could be charged for, even though persons have paid the surcharge—it is important to have flexibility in the legislation—but when the Act is initially implemented it is our clear policy intention that there will be no further charges for treatments where people have paid the surcharge. They will be treated as if they are permanent residents. The Bill’s provisions are therefore wider than the application of the legislation
The noble Baroness also asked me about the transitional arrangements. There are no transitional arrangements to the extent that anybody who is already here under existing immigration laws permitting them a period of stay greater than six months will not to have to pay the surcharge. The payment will be required only of people who are making a new application or new applicants. It should be noted that if somebody is extending their leave by making a fresh application the surcharge will become due. There is no question of trying to recover the surcharge from people who already have a right to be in this country for more than six months.
Lord Patel
If the Minister will allow me, before he answers the noble Baroness, can I make something clear? We keep confusing surcharge with levy. Let us talk about the levy that will be imposed on people coming here who are not visitors. Once that levy has been paid, it will allow them to access all health services. Is that quite clear?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, that is exactly right. They will have the same access to health services as is available to a permanent resident. That is the whole purpose. It is administratively a tidy arrangement; it is straightforward and easy to police; and people will be paying it at the same time as they apply for their visa. Their visa application will show that they have those rights, so if anyone seeks to charge such a person, they will not be chargeable because they will have a clear right to free healthcare, just as the noble Lord and I would.
It is really important to emphasise that point, because the whole point of having the levy, the charge or whatever we call it, is to provide a contribution from people who stay here and may impose some cost on the health service but to avoid asking them for payments for services provided or to take out an insurance policy before they come here to cover any chance that there will be health costs. It will be an asset to the health service in the sense that it will provide money to support the health service. It also regularises the position of the individuals involved. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Patel
It does, but I wonder whether this is new policy thinking, because much in the Bill, particularly in this part, implies that the Government want to be able to impose charges for other things.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not think so. I think that the Bill’s provisions are purely about health service charging for those who come here for a fixed term of six months or more and who are not here as visitors. It clearly differentiates between those who are here legally and with proper documentation and those who are illegal, so it will make it more difficult for those people who are here illegally to avoid the implication of their illegal presence here in the United Kingdom. We should remember that most people who are here illegally are overstayers; they are not people who have come in but people who should have gone home. That is one thrust behind the legislation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
May I press the Minister just one step further, since this is quite a complex area? I think I am right that, at present, students count as being ordinarily resident as distinct from permanently resident. In future, because the ordinarily resident concept will broadly disappear, they will be regarded as permanent residents only if they put in the time to become, eventually, citizens in that sense. Many students, particularly those who are post-doctorate, continue to work in some area associated with what they are doing. For example, many post-docs work on research and are paid for it. If those students then pay taxes and national insurance on those earnings which they receive, but which are often well below what the market rate would be for their level of qualifications, am I right in thinking that they would not have access to free health treatment unless they had paid the surcharge at the moment when they got the visa?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
They will have access currently, as the noble Baroness will understand. When they make an application to come here from now on, they will have to pay the health surcharge on top of the visa that they are currently applying for. I hope that I have made that clear. At the same time, it has been suggested from the Box that I ought to make it absolutely clear that the surcharge will be paid when a person applies for a visa and for leave to remain when they are in the UK and extending their leave. I think that was what I said, but the Box obviously thought that it is such an important point that everyone should understand that.
Lord Patel
My Lords, what the Minister said in response to my question is clearly recorded, so we can all read it. As I understood it, I thought he said that once the health surcharge—let us say it is £200—is paid, for the duration of their legitimate stay in this country all health services will be available to them.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is a per annum charge, so if they are here for three years and are not a student it will be three times £200. But yes, that is exactly right.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
On this point, I am sorry that we are pursuing the Minister, but can I take this one step further? I was talking specifically about a post-doctoral graduate who might be earning some relatively small sum while he was a post-doctoral graduate. I take it that he would therefore not be exempt from the surcharge as well even though he would be paying both national insurance and taxation, if he was about the taxation threshold, and had paid the surcharge already. That is where the sense of some unfairness in the system arises rather strongly.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I suppose that at any boundary point, there are bound to be these sorts of situations occurring. The post-doctoral leave to remain would be in addition, perhaps, to a university degree. There would be an additional application, so indeed it would be allowable because they would not be permanently resident here in the UK. That is a correct analysis of the situation and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is absolutely right in pointing that out.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I hesitate to add to the interruptions that the Minister has already suffered, but I think I can understand what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was getting at. Clause 33(4) states:
“In specifying the amount of a charge under subsection (3)(b) the Secretary of State must … have regard to the range of health services that are likely to be available free of charge to persons who have been given immigration permission”.
That implies that not all health services will be available to that person, but the noble Lord has insisted that such persons will be treated on the same basis as a native of this country in accessing the health service. Why do we need subsection (4), which implies that there are other services which the health service provides that are not covered by the surcharge?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thought that I had made that clear in answer to an earlier question, and I am just trying to find my notes on that matter. When the Bill is initially implemented, it is our clear policy intention that there will be no further charges for treatment. The provision in the Bill is there for this particular period, but we will clarify the position on implementation. The policy position is that there will be no further charge. That is not on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly points out, but I am giving him the policy position from the Dispatch Box. I hope that that reassures him and my noble friend on that point.
Baroness Tonge
Would the Minister be patient one more time? I thank him very much for giving way. Unless the granting of a visa is made dependent on paying the health surcharge, will poor migrants—let us assume that a lot of people wanting to come to this country are coming for a better life and are very strapped for cash—not waive the health charge, or whatever we like to call it, and assume that because they are healthy when they apply for their visa they will never need medical treatment? Is there not a danger that we are forcing people into a situation where they will not be able to receive any medical treatment at all because they will be too poor?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have to say that we are not looking to put people in that situation. Indeed, one would hope—this is the reason for the provision—that if people are here for a period of time, they have got cover for their healthcare. That is the whole point of the charge in the first place. If people come as temporary visitors then that is a slightly different position, but they make that choice. They make the choice to come here, and they carry the responsibility to do so.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the amendments. It is good that we have had this chance to talk about the principles behind the charging and I hope that it has clarified the position to some degree. However, there are points here that I think I need to clear up. The first is that the restrictions to services set out in Part 3 are designed to protect our services from illegal immigrants—people who are remaining here outside the law. Many of these provisions will have no impact at all on pregnant women who are in the UK lawfully. The Government are committed to ensuring that the new restrictions and charges in Part 3 are appropriately targeted and do not impose a disproportionate burden on either service providers or migrants.
I should like to address some other points regarding Amendments 59, 60, 63, 64A and 65, which seek to exempt pregnant women from the health surcharge or the NHS treatment charges. I fear that there has been a misunderstanding about the purpose of the surcharge and the manner in which it will operate. As I say, the surcharge will be paid by legal, temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months. Our policy intention is that those who pay the surcharge, including pregnant women, will not be subject to most other NHS treatment charges. That will include both antenatal and postnatal care. They will be charged only for services that a UK resident might also be expected to pay for.
Amendment 60 also seeks to exempt children under the age of 18 from the surcharge. This would undermine the general principle that temporary migrants should contribute to the NHS, commensurate with their immigration status. Children are as likely to need NHS care as anyone else. It is therefore reasonable to expect parents—and it would be parents—to make this contribution on behalf of their child.
We have seen the headlines about health tourism. I am afraid that Amendments 63 and 65 would exacerbate the problem of maternity tourism. They would allow any pregnant woman to use the NHS free of charge. The NHS is not equipped to supply free maternity services for the rest of the world, and I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing for a government Minister to say.
Baroness Cumberlege
Amendment 63, which I tabled, proposes four new subsections. Proposed new subsection (1A) states:
“Notwithstanding subsection (1), any pregnant woman shall be treated as ordinarily resident”,
and proposed new subsection (1B) states:
“However, subsection (1A) shall not apply where there is evidence the woman has entered the UK for the purpose of obtaining healthcare”.
I think that is quite clear. I am saying that people who apply here simply for the purpose of obtaining healthcare should normally have to pay. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. I am still very concerned about the three examples I gave. Will he address them? The first is a woman who came in with her husband and the relationship has broken down. Is she now exempt from these charges? The second example is a woman who is destitute and living on the streets. If she becomes pregnant as a result of a sexual assault, is she exempt? The third is a woman who is married to a British man and has submitted an immigration application to the Home Office who becomes pregnant and gives birth while the application is being assessed. Is she to be charged? It is not just maternity services; it is the other services being introduced in this Bill, such as prescriptions, dental care and A&E.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend is very prescient because I was just about to turn to Amendment 63. It is exceptionally difficult to prove that a migrant had a prior intention to use the NHS. Pregnant migrants would simply say that they fully intended to return home for the birth of their child. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to prove otherwise if they were a temporary migrant. This amendment would require GPs and hospital staff to act as immigration officers, and that is exactly what we are trying to avoid in setting this charge.
I have an answer here for my noble friend on victims of sexual assault. I have been speaking for 30 minutes, which is way beyond the conventions of the House, in answering these amendments. I am quite prepared to go on if noble Lords are prepared to do so. Other noble Lords are waiting to hear the Statement, and I have to crave their indulgence. If I skip any points, I will try to sweep them up by writing to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments, but there are an awful lot of points. I am literally but halfway through my speaking notes.
My noble friend asked about the operation of NHS charging regulations. Urgent treatment will always be provided no matter what the circumstances, and the Department of Health will still have the power to exempt treatments from charges. It is considering what exemptions for vulnerable groups are appropriate as part of its reform programme; there is no provision in the Bill.
My noble friend also asked whether women who have outstanding NHS debts will receive care. Women who pay the surcharge will not incur NHS debts. Where illegal immigrants or visitors incur debts, they will still receive treatment where it is immediately necessary or urgent. Their NHS debt for this treatment exceeding £1,000 will be taken into account by the Home Office when determining future immigration applications.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Tonge and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that pregnant women in need of NHS care will receive it. Our intention is that surcharge payers will receive this care free of charge, at a fraction of the real cost of maternity services. Those who do not pay the surcharge, such as tourists and illegal migrants, who might otherwise be charged for maternity care, are also protected. Guidance to the NHS is explicit that, in order to protect the lives of both mother and unborn child, all maternity care, including routine antenatal care, must be provided to all women without delay caused by charging issues. I hope that I have made that clear in all the answers that I have given: the health of mother and child is paramount, regardless of the charging regime or the status of the mother.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord; I know that noble Lords are anxious to get on to the next debate. The answer the Minister gave me was not the answer to the question that I asked. I asked about those who have leave to remain in this country and are here legally—they could be UK citizens—but, having fled the domestic home where they have been subjected to violence, do not have the documents to show to a landlord and so cannot prove their status. How does the noble Lord intend for that matter to be dealt with, given the problems that it will cause to women fleeing domestic violence?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I remember that the noble Baroness painted this scenario and I understood it well enough; I am sorry if I missed that point in picking up another. There are exceptions for refuge accommodation and local authority-provided housing. After all, a broad range of individuals are in this situation. Social services will be able to help them with long-term housing needs and asylum seekers will also be authorised to rent. If I have not satisfied the noble Baroness, I do not want to mislead her or the House by giving her an off-the-cuff response which is beyond my brief at the minute. I will write to her, and copy in everyone, on this matter.
I am looking through these notes, and see that I have satisfied a number of questions—such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on children—in the way in which I have answered the broader matters. However, I recognise, too, that I may not have covered all the points made by noble Lords, but I am very mindful of the time. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will ask the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to withdraw his amendment. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which is by way of a warm-up, I suspect, for further adventures in these fields with the amendments that are yet to come.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for choosing to give the lengthy reply rather than the short one. This is clearly a matter of great concern to many of us, so I am most grateful to him for taking the time to answer our points as carefully as he could. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.