Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (Cm 8423)

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have put forward this Motion to take note of the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules to make sure that the Government give your Lordships’ House an opportunity to debate a very serious matter. You just have to look at the Explanatory Memorandum to see the range of criteria covered by these changes to the Immigration Rules. The changes were brought in by negative resolution, so this is the first opportunity that your Lordships’ House has had to discuss the matter, despite the legal judgment that led to these changes being given on 18 July this year and the fact that the rules have already come into effect. It would have been helpful to your Lordships’ House had there been an opportunity for an earlier debate and an explanation of why the matter had to be dealt with in this way. I do not intend to go into the individual areas of guidance but I have a number of questions for the Minister. It would be helpful, first, to hear about the circumstances that led to the statement of changes being laid.

I think it is appropriate to say how grateful we should be to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose work on this matter has been extremely helpful. Perhaps the summary at the beginning of its report is the best place to start. To give some background, on 18 July the Government lost a major immigration case in the Supreme Court. In the case involving Alvi v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Supreme Court maintained that substantive changes affecting immigration applications must be laid before Parliament. Mr Alvi had been refused leave to remain under tier 2 of the points-based system because his level of skills and salary did not meet the criteria. However, the Supreme Court quashed that ruling as the criterion used to make the decision was not part of the rules as laid before Parliament under Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 but had been published only in the guidance, which had not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny procedure and, therefore, approval.

The last compete revision of the Immigration Rules was laid before Parliament in 2008, but since then considerable guidance from the previous Government and this Government have been added. The question raised by this and previous cases was whether this was really guidance or a substantive change in the rules.

As we can see from this weighty document, Cm 8423, there are 290 pages of what had been issued as guidance but on 19 July, the day following the Supreme Court judgment, the Government laid the document before Parliament to take immediate effect on 20 July, even though the House of Commons was not then sitting— of course, your Lordships’ House was and a Written Statement was made by the Minister at that time. Does the ruling of 18 July 2012 mean that all immigration cases decided on the basis of guidance issued since 2008 have been decided on without a legal basis for that decision?

Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the changes apply to all applications on and after 20 July, when the statement to change the rules was laid, but what about the decisions taken before? What is the status of the decisions taken before Cm 8423 was laid? Have there been any further appeals against refusal since 18 July on the basis of the court’s judgment? It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether all the guidance issued is included in the statement. If it is, I am not 100% clear why all the guidance is imported into the rules—the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to that as well. Was any work undertaken to see what should legitimately remain in guidance or whether it should all be imported into the rules?

It strikes me that within the rules—that is, what was in guidance—are lists and lists over pages and pages referring to banking organisations where the financial information will be accepted by the Government. That was previously in guidance but is now in the rules, so does that mean that any deletions or additions to the list can be made only by rules and in future not be changed in the guidance? Because of the volume of the material, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was unable to verify the Government’s statement that the new statement of changes includes all and only that previously issued in the guidance. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that there is nothing in the rules other than what was previously in guidance.

The basis of the Supreme Court decision was that the guidance was not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Now that the Government have brought in this statement of changes by negative resolution, are they satisfied that they have done enough to ensure that this has the full force of law? One of my concerns relates to the negative procedure, which I shall mention again in a moment. If we had not requested this debate today, there would have been no debate in your Lordships’ House on this issue. We will not be asking for a vote on this, as the Minister is aware.

As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said, the statement of changes provides a short-term solution, but I know that from previous debates the Minister is aware of concerns that have been raised about the interaction between the Immigration Rules and the ECHR. The committee also raised further concerns about this on that occasion, as it had done previously. Is the Minister able to make any comment about that? I noted that paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that no statement is needed on the ECHR as the order is subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, unless I have misunderstood, that is not the view taken by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

We all understand that from time to time Governments have to bring forward emergency legislation or react immediately to events such as court judgments. Can the Minister confirm that that was the Government’s reason for laying the statement of changes by negative resolution on the day following the judgment in the case of Mr Alvi? If it was, I am then unclear about why the Government waited until then, because they had been aware of this problem for two years. It was pointed out to the Government by the then Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, following a previous statement of changes—HC96—in 2010 that was also laid urgently following two other court judgments.

Having read through the judgments, it seems that in 2010 the situation could not have been clearer. In July 2010, the challenge made in the case taken by an education charity, English UK, was that the decisions were taken ultra vires. It said it was challenging the change made to the Immigration Rules because it,

“ought to have been introduced by a change to the Immigration Rules and was not capable of being introduced by a change in the UKBA’s Guidance”.

In his judgment on that case, Mr Justice Foskett said that,

“the revised criterion could not be put in place by virtue of a process of issuing guidance. The ratio of the decision appears to me to be that a provision that reflects a substantive criterion for eligibility for admission or leave to remain must be the subject of a process that involves a true Parliamentary scrutiny”.

He made other comments on that in his judgment, such as that:

“It would follow from this that, if a change to current practice (even if reflecting the requirement of a rule) did not involve any alteration of a substantive criterion for admission or for leave to remain, there would be no objection to the change being effected in some form of extrinsic guidance”.

Basically, if it is a substantive change to the rule, it cannot be in guidance but has to be via legislation. He also said:

“I do not doubt that the changed approach in the new guidance does operate to change materially the substantive criteria for entry for foreign students”,

and that that,

“cannot be achieved by a change in guidance—it must be achieved through the medium of a rule change”.

That was in July 2010.

He recognised the complexity of the issues and said that the difficulty,

“arises when something is done by means of a change in existing guidance which arguably constitutes a change in the practice adopted by the Secretary of State in the administration of the rules regulating the entry into the UK of non-nationals”.

He said that the,

“word ‘guidance’ itself would ordinarily connote something less prescriptive than a rule”.

He said that it was a very complex area. He then went on to say that, if that is correct, simply,

“extrinsic guidance cannot be used in the manner in which it was sought to be used in this case to make a material or substantive change in existing immigration policy without the negative resolution procedure set out in section 3(2) of the Immigration Act being implemented”.

There was a similar case in June 2010 in the Court of Appeal, where it was said that,

“immigration rules are today different from and more than policy”.

The Government also lost that case a month earlier.

I know that I have already asked the noble Lord a couple of questions but I struggle to understand this and perhaps he can help. Why did the Government not act earlier when the judgment in those two cases seems very clear? In both cases, the judge said that guidance was different from rules and substantive change could not be made by guidance. Were there any further challenges between those two dates, from June and July 2010 through to July 2012? Clearly, changes were not made in 2010 that should have been made. By bringing this order forward now, the Government recognise that perhaps changes should have been earlier. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the Committee what changes there will be in practice from now on to ensure that the Government do not find themselves in this position again.

The other point concerns scrutiny. In his final comments, Mr Justice Foskett referred to the negative resolution procedure, but earlier in his judgment he said that there had to be true parliamentary scrutiny. It would be helpful to the Committee to be given an assurance that the negative procedure now being adopted satisfies the courts and the parliamentary process that this matter has been subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

This is a complex area. The bit that I struggle with most is that the measure was introduced as an emergency process to deal with the 2010 judgments. Anything that the noble Lord can say to enlighten me on that position will be very helpful.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, a month ago we debated the first of the post-Alvi statements of changes in Immigration Rules, on a Motion to Regret tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, not so much because she disagreed with the Government’s objectives but on the narrow ground that the minimum annual income requirement for a person wanting to bring in a spouse from a non-EEA country was not the most effective way of protecting the taxpayer and delivering fairness for the would-be sponsors and their partners. We wanted to highlight the far more questionable government objective of reducing the number of net immigrants below 100,000 by fair means or foul, picking on easy targets wherever they can find them.

As the noble Baroness has explained, the purpose of this statement, which is 295 pages long, including its Explanatory Memorandum, is to transfer requirements that were previously embodied in guidance into the Immigration Rules, satisfying the Supreme Court judgment in the Alvi case that only rules approved by Parliament could have the force of law. It is a weighty document and I cannot help feeling that it is a good thing the Almighty did not have anything to say about the Immigration Rules or Moses would have had a hard time carrying this lot down from the summit.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee suggests that we should ask the Government to clarify the status of cases decided on the basis of the guidance since 2008, when the last complete revision of the Immigration Rules was laid, and I will come back to that point. The committee goes on to observe that, in the light of its previous reports and a number of unresolved questions about the interaction between the rules and the European Convention, changes to the primary legislation might be necessary to put its application beyond question. I hope that we shall hear something from the Government on both those matters.

There is a further detailed point about the salary threshold for IT workers. These thresholds are now subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and we are prompted to ask the Government to set out the methodology for calculating them. The statement contains 74 pages specifying the salaries for particular occupations. How often is it intended to revise the figures, with presumably a statement requiring parliamentary approval every time? The problem with this approach is that every minute requirement that has to be satisfied by an applicant for leave to enter or remain in the UK now has to be set out in the rules without any element of discretion whatever being provided to the decision-makers. If a rule leads to an outcome that is unreasonable, it can be rectified only by a further statement of changes, and if there is a minor error in the documentation that has to be submitted in connection with an application, the decision-maker has no option but to reject it. The applicant has to submit a fresh application with all the delay and expense that that involves.

I give an example of the rigidity of the system. Mr AD is self-employed, and in connection with an application to bring his partner in from a non-EEA country he has to prove that his earnings exceed £18,600. For every other purpose “certified” accounts are acceptable, but on page 280 of this statement, the rules demand a full audit, at an additional cost which may exceed £1,000. In response to a letter from Mr AD’s MP, Stephen Lloyd, the Minister for Immigration, Mark Harper MP, says that the Home Office is currently considering whether it needs to insist on audited accounts—a requirement that must have already imposed an unnecessary burden on dozens of sponsors. That is clearly inconsistent with the Government’s declared policy of reducing the load of bureaucracy on small businesses and I would like the Minister to say this afternoon that it will be removed, presumably by a further statement of changes in the rules.