Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, we could probably spend four hours going backwards and forwards on this obviously important subject, but it might be useful, given that we have a number of things to get through, to hear the views of the Front Benches.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I do not intend to speak at any great length. We support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Indeed, it is quite clear that not all Government MPs are opposed to taking unaccompanied children already in Europe, not least some of those who have been to the entry points in Greece and other parts of Europe and seen the situation for themselves. We also welcome the financial support the Government are providing to those in camps in Syria and neighbouring countries.
I think we are all agreed—everyone who has spoken is—that we should be taking some unaccompanied children; there might be an issue as to where we take them from. It is not clear, as has already been said, what the Government’s intentions are in this respect, certainly in relation to numbers. The Government, obviously, up to now are sticking to their line that they would be from within Syria and neighbouring countries, but I think I am right in saying that we have not been told how many. I suppose one answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Green, about the extent to which our taking 3,000 unaccompanied children who are already in Europe might act as an incentive for parents to send their children that way might be that it rather depends how many children the Government intend to take from Syria and neighbouring countries. Clearly if they intend to take quite considerable numbers, that might still be seen as the most favourable way of seeking admission, provided the criteria were met, into the United Kingdom. That, no doubt, is something that the Minister will comment on when he replies, perhaps giving an indication of how many unaccompanied children the Government expect to take from Syria and neighbouring countries. I ask again how the Government actually reached their initial figure of taking 20,000 people over five years. I am still not clear how they reached that. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment on that as well as on the number of unaccompanied children the Government expect to be taking under the arrangements they have announced.
The reality is, as has already been said, that we have apparently considerable numbers of unaccompanied children already in Europe. I am certainly not confining my comments to Calais and Dunkirk. Indeed, the amendment refers to children,
“who are in European countries”.
It is not related simply to what may be happening in Calais and Dunkirk. My understanding, unless I have got the figure wrong, is that Europol recently said that more than 10,000 unaccompanied children registered after arriving in Europe over the past 18 months to two years have disappeared. It said that youngsters arriving in Europe alone are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. That, no doubt, is something on which the Minister will comment. Why are the Government refusing to take some unaccompanied children from within Europe—a specific figure is mentioned in the amendment? Where children have been identified as being unaccompanied, on their own and having come from a country ravaged by civil war, where hundreds of thousands have died and many have been brutally murdered, is it really still the Government’s policy to wash our hands of them as far as relocation to the United Kingdom is concerned because they landed cold, wet, scared and on their own on, for example, a Greek island rather than being in or near Syria? Up to now, that appears basically to be the Government’s stance.
Lord Rosser
We have an amendment in this group that calls for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of border security. Part of that review would be to consider the adequacy of resources currently available at all points of entry to the United Kingdom; it also provides for the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act. I do not want to make many points, since concerns about border security have been expressed already, but I do not think that the Government know how many people are coming in and out of our country and who they are. They do not, for example, have any idea what the net migration figure will be each year. It seems to come as much a surprise to the Government as to anyone else.
We really have got to the stage when we have to get a grip on our borders. After all, it was only recently—it may have been last month—that a terror suspect on bail departed at a major sea port. We have also had an instance of a terror suspect from the continent coming in through the same route. It would appear that some of those whom we regard as extremists perceive the ferry borders to be a weak link—and it looks as though they have some reason and justification for feeling that way, unfortunately. The Home Secretary really must conduct an urgent review of border security at ferry and other terminals and provide urgent reassurance that passports are properly checked on exit and arrival in the UK.
I think that it is the case that more than two years ago the Government were warned by the National Audit Office that there were worrying gaps in the new Border Force. A recent report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration suggests that those gaps are still there and that potential terrorists can also enter our country unchecked—for example, as has already been mentioned, via private planes and boats—as well as there being some evidence that they can come in and out of the country through major ports. Even if the Government do not feel inclined to accept my amendment—naturally, I hope that they will—I hope that we will hear in the Minister’s response that some steps are being taken to tighten up on our borders so that we know who is coming and going, not only the numbers but who they are. I hope that it will be an end to reports, whether from the National Audit Office or from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, that there are gaps, and quite serious ones, that need plugging.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I support Amendment 240. The sheer scale of immigration is a major public concern. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we need to get a grip, and part of that is a matter of reorganisation, which I think is at hand. Another part is to have a legal framework, and we are doing that today. But none of that is any use at all unless it is enforced. I am increasingly of the view that the lack of resources is becoming a serious constraint; it really does need to be looked at, and the Government should explain how they think they can achieve their objectives on the resources that they have so allocated.
Lastly, I offer qualified support to Amendment 241A. Illegal immigration is a very important subject that is often ducked. We have looked at this, and it is very difficult to get beyond merely ballpark estimates, but it is worth having a shot at and I think that the Government should do it—not annually, because there is just not enough information for that, but it should be done and it would be worth doing.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I shall be brief if I can, because—if I can make a pitch wearing my Whip’s hat—we have six more groups of amendments to debate.
It may help if I speak first to government Amendment 239C, which I hope will be uncontroversial. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his support on this amendment. This makes a minor change to extend the maritime powers in the Bill to Northern Ireland port police by altering the definition of “Northern Ireland constable” in new Section 28Q of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 to the Bill.
The two harbour police forces in Northern Ireland, the Belfast Harbour Police and Larne Harbour Police, were not initially included in the Bill as the categories of officers listed are modelled on the maritime powers in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, we have listened to points made by Northern Irish Members in another place and agree that a consistent approach should be taken across the UK with the enforcement of immigration control. Therefore, this amendment aligns the position of port police forces in Northern Ireland with those port police forces elsewhere in the UK which are already included in the Bill. It will be a matter for individual port police forces to consider whether they wish to use the powers or rely on the relevant territorial force—for example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Amendment 239BA would extend our penalties for misdirected passengers to general aviation sites, private landing strips and helipads. It is the Government’s intention to operate the misdirected flights penalties only at sites where there is a designated control zone to which arriving passengers must be directed for border checks by the Border Force. I shall come on to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made in a moment. Given the large number of general aviation sites, landing strips and helipads in the UK that do not have a permanent Border Force presence, this amendment is unnecessary and unworkable. It would place a disproportionate burden on those sites. Border Force officers attend such sites only when they need to check specific arrivals.
On what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was saying about the potential loophole, I should quickly mention how border authorities handle general aviation flights. The Border Force and police take an intelligence-led approach to general aviation, which strikes a balance between securing our borders and best managing resources. Flights are risk-assessed in advance and, when appropriate, border authorities will physically examine crew, passengers and goods. There are in excess of 3,000 private air fields nationwide, and it would be unfeasible for the Border Force and police routinely to meet all arriving flights. It was noted by the independent inspection report published in January that the Border Force has made a number of significant recent interventions in the general aviation environment. I confirm that all those travelling via general aviation are subject to the same immigration and visa requirements as those using scheduled services. The noble Lord asks whether we are doing something about it. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 includes enabling provisions for a stronger legislative framework for advanced notification for general aviation. Regulations will bring greater clarity to what is needed from the sector but also provide for appropriate sanctions to enforce compliance by the small minority that do not provide advanced notification under the current arrangements.
Amendment 240 seeks to include provision for a statutory review of border security in the United Kingdom. The Border Force operates a control regime which is predicated on checking 100% of scheduled arrivals. Our collection of advanced passenger information from carriers enables us to identify known subjects of interest to law enforcement agencies before they travel, allowing us to intervene and direct airlines and ferry companies not to carry certain passengers so that they never even set foot in the UK. The Border Force adopts an intelligence-led approach in combination with its partners to identify and intercept contraband goods which have the potential to cause harm to the public. Our visa regime provides another vital way by which we are able to manage the threats from crime, terrorism, illegal migration, and espionage.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration regularly reviews Home Office immigration functions, including our management of border security. Most significantly, following the independent chief inspector’s critical review of the then UK Border Agency, Border Force was established as a separate law enforcement body. The Home Office also works with a range of other partners, including port operators, carriers and road hauliers. This allows us to review processes and security interventions to make border security work efficiently, and to work together to intercept threats while keeping the flow of law-abiding passengers and freight moving as smoothly as possible. I assure the Committee that the Government keep the UK’s border security arrangements under constant review and these arrangements are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration—as I have said—and by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The reports and publications of both of these are laid before Parliament. On this basis, we do not consider there is any need to introduce a further statutory review process.
Lord Rosser
Are the Government satisfied with our border security arrangements at the moment?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 242C, 242G and 242J. Before I come to them, I shall say that I support the amendment on British Sign Language. My noble friend Lady Humphreys is in her place. She heard the confirmation about the Welsh language and welcomes it. I say that in the context of wishing this clause were not here at all. I appreciate that there was a line in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the previous election and that is why I have not sought to take these clauses out altogether.
The impact assessment on these clauses confirmed my anxiety about their potential for encouraging discrimination and harassment. It says:
“The policy objective is to ensure a sufficient standard of fluent English is maintained and can be enforced … This is intended to improve the quality, efficiency and safety of public service provision and support taxpayers confidence they are receiving value for money”.
So far, so good.
“This proposal is expected to support current priorities for the management of immigration into the UK”.
I have littered questions marks, the word “prejudice”, an exclamation mark and the word “tangentially” around that statement.
We would prefer to take these clauses out altogether, but the first of our amendments looks at the provision for expanding the requirements into the private sector. It is a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister is aware of the questions that I intend to ask. If this is of such concern, why, in a service context where so many public services are provided on behalf of the Government by the private sector, does the Bill not immediately extend to services which are contracted out? Will there be changes to the requirements as they affect contractors? Has consultation taken place with the private sector? Will there be a single code of practice? Since so much is outsourced, it seems odd if work which is outsourced is not covered, but I wonder whether the private sector will be happy with this as a requirement. I am interested in the consultation.
Amendment 242G is on the code of practice, which under Clause 50 may make different provision for different purposes. I have suggested,
“and for different roles or descriptions of roles”.
It may well be that the Minister will confirm that that is within Clause 50(6) because there are clearly different things that people in the public sector do in different roles or may need to do. The impact assessment states that the code,
“will be flexible enough to account for the differing requirements and existing arrangements of different public sector bodies”,
but it would be good to have confirmation that the legislation allows for that.
Amendment 242J would require a review within five years. I ask the Committee to understand this amendment in the context of my initial remarks. Noble Lords will understand from the points that I have listed in the amendment the matters with which I am concerned:
“the extent and types of authority subject to the requirement; … the standard required; … procedures for complaints”—
it has been pointed out to me that it is sad that requirements are being put in place and that it is felt necessary to have a complaints procedure designed from the beginning—
“direct and indirect discrimination which has or may have arisen; and … the resources required to meet this requirement”.
The Race Equality Foundation says,
“the draft code is poorly drafted, poorly structured and … there is nothing to prevent users of public services making complaints on the basis of accent and appearance. These provisions may encourage, and semi-legitimise, racially-motivated harassment under the guise of challenging someone’s ability to speak ‘fluent’ English. There is already evidence on the greater likelihood for black and minority ethnic people to be subject to the disciplinary process in public services”.
It is obviously concerned about these requirements expanding that likelihood.
The Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals was very moderate in its language:
“No amount of guidance in the draft Code of Practice can save what is an irredeemably unworkable scheme”.
It talks about:
“The opportunities for directly and indirectly discriminatory, and harassment, claims”,
and reminds us that harassment is a form of discrimination under EU equality law. It asks about the constitutional basis. I think I would ask about the evidence base.
The institute also points out that:
“The use of the terms ‘high standard of English’ … and ‘fluency’ indicate a ‘mother tongue’ proficiency, which is not permissible in EU law”.
Another of its comments says,
“these measures will leave public bodies open to extensive litigation, primarily on grounds of race and ethnic origins, but also on grounds of disability, in relation to … discrimination and harassment claims”.
I said—I think at Second Reading—that I regard the ability to communicate as important, indeed essential, in the public sector, as in all other parts of life, but I cannot be the only person in this Committee who has encountered someone whose English is perfect but who cannot make themselves understood.
Lord Rosser
I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment. As far as I understand it, the Government will accept British Sign Language—or at least they are saying it is provided for in the code—but they do not wish to put that in the Bill. I will wait with interest to see why that is unnecessary or undesirable since I am not quite sure at the moment what the answer is.
I also want to pursue the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am sure the Minister will put me right if I have misread this, but the language requirements refer to public sector workers. I take it that means that any private sector organisation with customer-facing roles will not be covered by the Bill. I ask the same question as the noble Baroness. Why is this being geared to the public sector alone? I do not know that I have particular enthusiasm for seeing it apply across the private sector since I have some of the reservations, subject to what the Minister may say, about the extent to which this could lead to some discrimination. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will explain how it is going to work. As I understand it, the definition of speaking fluent English is laid out in the Bill:
“For the purposes of this Part a person speaks fluent English if the person has a command of spoken English which is sufficient to enable the effective performance of the person’s role”.
Who will judge that and decide whether their English is sufficient? Is it open to somebody to complain that that criterion has not been met? If so, what then happens?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. Clearly some important issues are raised here. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted that there was some reference to this issue in the Conservative Party manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will correct me if I am wrong but it also featured in the Labour Party manifesto, so I would understand him to have a reasonable degree of insight into what is proposed here.
Lord Rosser
I am asking how the Government intend to apply this. It is their legislation.
Lord Keen of Elie
I fully understand the nature of the noble Lord’s inquiry; I was just pointing out that the rationale behind this legislation was recognised not only in the Conservative Party manifesto but in the Labour Party manifesto.
I begin by looking at Amendment 242, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I am glad to have the opportunity to reassure her and other noble Lords that the duty being imposed by this provision does not apply to individuals who communicate using British Sign Language. I believe it may help if I explain that it will not be the responsibility of individual members of staff to meet this duty; it will be the responsibility of public authorities, as the employers. I remind noble Lords that, as employers, public authorities have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for their staff. If reasonable, a British Sign Language interpreter would be provided. In addition, any worker or job applicant who communicates using British Sign Language must be considered for recruitment on a par with any other applicant.
To comply with the duty in Part 7, public authorities must ensure that the British Sign Language interpreters whom they employ, rather than the recipients of such a workplace adjustment, speak fluent English. Given that fluent spoken English is the reason the interpreter has been engaged, there should be no difficulty at all in public authorities meeting that duty. In those circumstances, I seek to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the position in regard to British Sign Language.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, in relation to skills, I draw the Committee’s attention to the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on training in the private sector. Her report found that there had been a substantial fall in what she described as “serious” training—that is off-site training—since 2008. It is clearly necessary that action should be taken and encouragement should be provided by the Government to tackle that. That said, I do not think I have any comment on this. I listened with interest to the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has made some very interesting points on this issue. I wait with interest to see what the Minister has to say in response. I would be grateful if he would respond on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised about consultation on the implications for the public sector.
He mentioned the health service and universities. It will obviously be no secret that representations have been received from universities and health service organisations about the implications of this proposal. Indeed, I understand that some universities have taken it up directly with government. Will the Minister set out the extent to which the consultation covered public sector organisations and say what responses were received? Clearly, their line is over the additional costs it is likely to cause the service in question. Indeed, universities will say that it is causing additional costs which might lead to them not necessarily being able to recruit the best people, and obviously part of the role of a university is to train people and increase their skills through higher education. It would seem a bit distorted if the purpose of the levy was to enable money to be provided for apprenticeships but, in so doing, it managed to weaken the ability of universities to provide the best people to provide the education which in itself is raising the skills of people who will be needed in the labour market in the future.
Lord Bates
My Lords, Clause 55 provides a power to raise the charge, but details about the rate and scope of the immigration skills charge will be set out in regulations to be laid before the introduction of the charge. At that point there will be an opportunity for an informed debate on the details within the regulations. There are likely to be legal implications of introducing exemptions which will require careful consideration.
The Migration Advisory Committee published its review of tier 2 migration on 19 January, and the Government need time fully to consider the evidence about the likely impact of different rates on different types of organisation. As well as the Migration Advisory Committee’s findings and recommendations, we wish to consider other evidence from stakeholders and any legal implications before recommending the rate at which the immigration skills charge could be set and whether any exemptions should be applied.
The Government believe in consulting those affected by the proposed changes. The independent Migration Advisory Committee carried out detailed stakeholder consultation as part of its review of tier 2 migration. In addition, this Government have welcomed discussions with, and received evidence from, a large number of businesses and representative organisations. The process will continue and will, of course, take into account the representations that have been made today by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and those received from academic institutions both by me directly and by other colleagues.
As for consulting on the changes, since the announcement in May, we have been consulting employers and business leaders across the private and public sectors to get their views on the immigration skills charge. This will continue. In addition, the Migration Advisory Committee conducted a review of tier 2 with the remit to advise government on restricting tier 2 to genuine skills shortages and highly specialised experts. As part of this review, the MAC considered evidence from employers on the immigration skills charge.
As to the impact on healthcare, which the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Wallace, asked about, no decision has yet been made. The details of the charge will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for a full debate at that point.
The Government have not said that the immigration skills charge will fund the 3 million apprenticeships; rather, they have said that the immigration skills charge will contribute towards skills funding. The level of the charge has not yet been set. The Government are also proposing an apprenticeship levy, not linked to migration, which will go towards apprenticeship funding. The Migration Advisory Committee recommended a figure of £1,000 per year, which is large enough to raise a reasonable amount of revenue and have an impact on employer behaviour.
That is at the core of what this is about. As the Prime Minister said at the outset, it has been far too easy for some businesses to bring in workers from overseas rather than take the long-term decision to train the resident workforce in the UK. We need to do more to change that, and that is the rationale that is driving this. We are proposing that a charge be enabled through this legislation, and we are continuing to consult because we are not unmoved by the noble Lord’s argument that the level at which this is set and those to whom it is applied will have significant implications. Therefore, we need to get that right.
The noble Lord slightly chastised us by saying that we used to have a policy of attracting the brightest and the best. Of course, there is only one thing better than that, and that is to actually grow the brightest and the best here. That is what this policy is designed to do. More details will follow and the House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those when they are presented.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I will be a little more guarded in what I say on this one. Some very strong and forceful speeches have been made on the basis that it appears that certain individuals who may have a lot of money are being treated rather differently from those who do not. I will leave it in the context that I will wait to see whether the Minister will accept this amendment. I will wait and see what the Government’s justification is for the tier 1 visa and the conditions under which it is given before I come to any conclusions for the Opposition. I have listened with great interest to what has been said. There seem to have been some pretty powerful points made, and I also want to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Bates
My speech begins with the line that I have listened carefully to the arguments. I think the arguments have been well made. I will try to set out for the benefit of the Committee the rationale behind this and then answer some of the specific questions. I underline the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the United Kingdom remains an attractive destination for legitimate international investors. The tier 1 investor visa route allows migrants to make a significant financial contribution to the UK, either through the purchase of share or loan capital in UK businesses, or through UK government bonds. The route does not recognise the purchase of property as a qualifying investment.
The proposed amendment would not only result in the immediate loss of millions of pounds of capital inflow, but deliver a powerful global message that foreign investors are no longer welcome in the UK. This is a message the Government have no desire to send. The Government are clear in their commitment to ensuring that the investor route delivers benefits to UK taxpayers and it remains an important component of the UK’s visa offer for high value migrants.
Acting on an independent Migration Advisory Committee review of the tier 1 investor category, the Government introduced a package of reforms in November 2014. These included taking additional powers to refuse applications where the funds have been obtained unlawfully, where the applicant is not in control of the funds and where the granting of the application would not be conducive to the public good. The Government also raised the investment threshold from £1 million to £2 million and removed a provision which allowed investments to be funded through a loan. Since April last year the immigration rules have also required that prospective tier 1 applicants must open a UK bank account before their application for a visa is allowed. This ensures they have undergone financial due diligence checks before they are granted an investor visa.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for raising his concerns that visas of this nature have no place in a sovereign nation and that this may be the preserve of tax havens. It would be correct to observe that some so-called tax havens operate citizenship-by-investment schemes, whereby wealthy individuals may be able to effectively purchase a second nationality in return for a sizeable donation, often paid directly to the host Government. I make it absolutely clear that the UK’s tier 1 investor visa is not such a scheme. The UK’s investor visa offers no guarantee of an extension, beyond the initial two or three-year term, let alone settlement, or citizenship. At each of these points, applicants must not only demonstrate that they have continued to hold the appropriate qualifying investments, but are also subjected to further robust checks.
Let me deal with some of the points that have been raised and provide a bit of additional information. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about precautions. I think my answer addressed some of the points he raised about due diligence, which is carried out in the process of securing the bank account. Also, the United Kingdom maintains some of the toughest anti-money laundering laws in the world and is respected as such. The general grounds for refusal in immigration rules enable the Government to refuse investor visas where the applicant’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, which means that we carry out checks on their criminal background. Under a pilot scheme, investor visa applicants are required to provide criminal record checks from their country of residence as a condition of applying for the visa.
As a result of all the changes that we have introduced, and which significantly toughen up the approach—this may speak to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised—in the last quarter for which figures are available we granted only 46 such visas compared to 274 in the corresponding period in the previous year. That is a reduction of 83%. Before the noble Lord, Lord Green, gets to his feet, let me say that some of that may have something to do with the general economic situation in some of the key countries from which people would normally apply for these visas. However, it might also reflect that the toughening of the rules is having the desired effect.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord, Lord Green, makes some very good points. I was looking behind me for some inspiration that would enable me to provide a brilliant argument as to why that is not the case. In fact, there were just nods, as if to say, “Yes, that is about right”. This is something that we need to keep under very careful review, and we do. When we get advice from the Migration Advisory Committee that there are problems with the scheme, we have, in the past, shown that we will take action.
On some of the points that were raised about property, there is no suggestion from anyone that people would not be able to own property in any part of the world. The housing issues that were raised are not linked to the scheme. Under the coalition Government, we significantly raised the stamp duty to about 12% on larger homes at that level. In a similar vein, the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement that there would be a further levy of an additional 3% for people coming in and purchasing a home in the UK as a second home. That was on top of the increase to 12%. Significant things are happening, but it is about how we maintain an offering on the international stage which ensures that we can attract people with exceptional talent, people who want to come and invest here, and people who want to study, visit or work here so that they can contribute to the public good of this country. We need to keep that under review. That is something that the Government continue to do. I am sure that we will want to take note of the comments made in the course of the debate ahead of Report. I am sure we will revisit it then, but until that point I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, temporarily.
Lord Rosser
I am not quite clear on what the Minister said in the last part of his comments. Is he saying that he intends to reflect on what has been said and write to us prior to Report? What does he envisage will happen between now and Report?
Lord Bates
Forgive me for trying to be reasonable. I was simply saying that this was an interesting argument that I listened to and followed. A number of points were raised from all parts of the Committee, expressing concerns about how this system operates. I want to go back and talk with colleagues about the system and how it operates, and then come back with answers to the points raised or suggestions as to how things could be improved.
Airports: Expansion
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the subject of specific surveys, I will write to the noble Baroness about those two areas. However, as she is no doubt aware, Manchester, for example, will also benefit from £1 billion of investment over the next 10 years—and there are other regional airports. Indeed, I was looking forward to a question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton—but I may pre-empt that if I add that Luton, too, has benefited. Further to the noble Lord’s previous question, I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently visited Luton and saw the excellent facilities there.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government clarify the questions that they are now asking about extra runway capacity, and the options that they do not believe were fully addressed or answered in the Airports Commission report? Which bodies and organisations are they now asking to provide views and information on the questions that they are still asking?
Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
“( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Before a decision is taken to certify a human rights claim, the Secretary of State must obtain a multi-agency best interests assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by the decision to certify.””
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 34 and this amendment deal with rights of appeal relating to persons who claim to have a right to remain in the United Kingdom on asylum or human rights grounds, but whose claim has been refused. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State will have the power to certify the claim for someone appealing on human rights grounds against an immigration decision so that they can only appeal from outside of the United Kingdom unless to do so would be in breach of their human rights.
This extends to all individuals the provisions that are already enforced for the deportation cases of former foreign national offenders, and will affect all those bringing human rights appeals under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the right to respect for private and family life. In order to make an application under Article 8, it is necessary to gather extensive evidence demonstrating the extent to which a child, for example, has developed a personal life and connections within the United Kingdom, including evidence from the carer, teachers, therapists, medical professionals, mentors and friends. This is surely made far harder where those connections are severed by distance and time, enforced by deportation and delays in the tribunal system.
It is also vital not only to understand and obtain evidence, but to present it appropriately, which requires legal assistance, yet legal aid is not available for Article 8 appeals save on an exceptional basis. For those without the requisite leave there will also be no legal aid to challenge the certification of the case prior to removal. As a result, out-of-country appeals, for which the deadlines to lodge an appeal are often extremely tight, will not be pursued or will be pursued only inadequately, given the costs of taking forward an appeal as a privately paying individual from overseas. It may be that that is the deliberate intention of this measure. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the Secretary of State was given power to certify deportation appeals so that a foreign national offender subject to a deportation order can be removed before their appeal or during the appeal process if the Secretary of State decides that to do so would not cause serious irreversible harm—not just serious harm, but serious irreversible harm. Available data show that in the year since the provision came into force for foreign national offenders, the number of appeals against deportation brought out of country has dropped by 87% compared with the number brought in country in the year to April 2013. The rate of success on appeal is also lower than before, decreasing from 26% in the year to April 2013 to just 13%. That suggests that many individuals are unable to appeal effectively a decision following removal from the UK, and that appeals which would have been successful are not being brought.
The available data indicate that “deport first, appeal later” has had an adverse impact on the ability of foreign national offenders—whom I appreciate may not be the most popular of individuals—to challenge a deportation decision, which suggests that this handicap will affect thousands more individuals if the provisions are extended, including many who have British or settled family members in the UK, such as partners and children. We have in this group a stand part Motion relating to Clause 34.
Amendment 227 is intended to ensure that before a decision is made to certify any claim for an out-of-country appeal, the best interests of any child affected must be considered in line with the terms of our amendment. As I have already said, Clause 34 is a wide extension of the existing powers relating to a limited class of individuals, and will now cover many people who are appealing their cases. It is not clear to what extent the Government have considered the impact, particularly on children, of separation in such circumstances. The Children’s Commissioner published a report last year about the impact of different rules, including the rules about the income requirement that has to be met before a spouse can join a family. It also addressed the adverse impact on a child of not having access to one parent for months or sometimes years. The Government’s figures indicate that around 40% of appeals succeed, which is a high success rate for appeals, and if a family is involved it could result in the distress referred to in the Children’s Commissioner’s report, because they cannot have any meaningful contact with one of their parents for a prolonged period. That is a real difficulty with the intention to extend the removal of individuals before an appeal can take place. Many appeals take a long time to deal with, and this Bill seems a bit thin in addressing that issue.
Lord Rosser
First, I thank the Minister for that lengthy and comprehensive reply, which I am sure will have been appreciated by all those who have spoken and raised points in this debate. That does not necessarily mean that they have agreed with the Minister, but I am sure they have appreciated the extent to which he has sought to reply to the points that have been made. I also express my appreciation to everybody who has spoken in the debate.
In the light of the noble and learned Lord’s last comment that he would reflect further on whether something not too dissimilar to what was suggested in our amendment might appear on the face of the Bill, which I think is what he said, frankly I am tempted not to make all the points that I was going to make in response. I hope that that will not be taken as meaning that he has left me completely speechless with his reply; I am doing it in the light of what he said at the end of his contribution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
We have the clause stand part debate on Clause 37 and an amendment in this group.
On 4 August, the Government initiated a consultation on proposals for changes in the support available to refused asylum seekers. The consultation ended just over a month later on 9 September and the Immigration Bill was published six days after the consultation ended. One can only comment that that was remarkably quickly after the end of a consultation exercise on part of the provisions of the Immigration Bill.
At present, there are two forms of support for asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—they are usually referred to as Section 95 support and Section 4 support. While waiting for a decision on the application, asylum seekers are not eligible for mainstream benefits. If they would otherwise be destitute, they can apply to the Government for accommodation or financial support or both under Section 95 of the 1999 Act. Since August of last year, the financial support available has been £36.95 per week per adult or child. That is, by the way, one-eighth of the daily allowance applicable in this place, which I believe one noble Lord recently declared was “inadequate”.
Asylum seekers whose application for asylum is unsuccessful and whose appeal rights are exhausted cease to be eligible for Section 95 support, which is terminated 21 days after the claim has finally been determined. Under some circumstances, destitute refused asylum seekers can apply for Section 4 support under the 1999 Act. If granted, that is not paid in cash but a payment card is provided, credited with £35.39 per person per week to be used in specified retail outlets to buy food and essential toiletries.
Under the 1999 Act, refused asylum-seeking families with children under the age of 18 who were part of the family before the final decision was made on the asylum application can continue to receive Section 95 support until the youngest child turns 18 or the family leaves the United Kingdom.
Under the Bill, that entitlement for refused asylum-seeking families is taken away. As a result, support under Section 95 for families with children will be stopped once they have been refused and had any appeal rejected, following, in the light of the recent information we had from the Minister, what will now be a 90-day grace period, which I acknowledge is longer than the Government were originally proposing.
After the 90 days, these families may then be eligible for a new form of support under new Section 95A, which replaces Section 4 support. However, to qualify for support under new Section 95A, individuals and families who have had their asylum application refused will need to demonstrate that they are destitute and face a genuine obstacle to leaving the United Kingdom. The details of how this will work will be set out in regulations, but the Government have already stated that the criteria for provision under new Section 95A will be very narrowly drawn and more narrowly defined than under Section 4.
Will the Minister say whether the Section 95 support will be withdrawn after 90 days for families who are fully engaging with the authorities over their departure, or will it continue in these circumstances? If so, who would make that decision for it to continue? Would there be a right of appeal against a negative decision in that regard? I ask that in the context that, as I understand it, the Government’s review of their family return process showed that, in 59% of cases, it took longer than three months to complete the process of leaving. Presumably, the evidence suggests that there will be many cases where support under Section 95 will cease before the family whose asylum claim has failed has been able to make all the necessary arrangements to return home.
The Government have also said that, under the new arrangements, it will not be possible to apply for new Section 95A support outside the prescribed grace period of 90 days under Section 95 support, except where the regulations permit this for reasons outside the person’s control. New Section 95A claims will require the applicant to show that there is a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK. For pregnant women, that is defined as being within six weeks of the due date. What will happen in a claim by a pregnant woman during the 90-day grace period for new Section 95A support who, at the time of the application, is not within the qualifying six weeks of the due date? Will they qualify for Section 95 support?
This clause and its associated schedule are clearly intended to deliver the objectives so bluntly set out in the Explanatory Notes of making it hard for those without the appropriate immigration status to live in this country. In this instance, it is the Government’s stated policy intention to encourage the departure—to put it euphemistically—from the UK of refused asylum seekers.
Will the Minister, when he responds, place on record the Government’s estimate of the reduction in the number of people in this country with no lawful basis to remain that will result from this intended change in the support arrangements, and the basis on which that estimate was determined? I ask that because the Government will be aware that there is far from universal acceptance of their apparent premise that cutting off support after 90 days to asylum-seeking families whose appeal rights have been exhausted will result in their leaving the United Kingdom, because where parents think that their children’s lives will be at risk if they return home they are rather more likely to consider that becoming destitute in the UK is still the better option available to them.
In 2005, the then Labour Government ran a pilot scheme in which families whose appeal rights were exhausted had all their support removed if they failed to take reasonable steps to leave the UK. The Government’s own evaluation of the scheme in respect of Section 9 of the 2004 asylum and immigration Act, which involved 116 families, concluded first that the rate of absconding was 39% for those in the Section 9 pilot, but just 21% in the comparable control group who remained supported. Secondly, it concluded that only one family in the pilot was successfully removed, compared with nine successful removals in the control group. There was no significant increase in the number of voluntary returns of unsuccessful asylum-seeking families. Finally, the earlier evaluation concluded that Section 9 should not be used on a blanket basis.
Lord Bates
The short answer to that is yes.
Amendment 233 would require the Secretary of State to provide failed asylum seekers with a caseworker, a named contact and legal advice. It would also require the appointment of an independent person to report on the financial assistance available to failed asylum seekers who leave voluntarily, and on contact with welfare organisations in the country of return.
I agree as to the importance of these issues but not as to the need for this amendment. We provide generous financial assistance to incentivise returns and assist with reintegration in the country of origin. This can be up to £2,000 per person for families and up to £1,500 in support for a single person, in addition to removal expenses and their travel and transport costs such as flights. We also provide help with travel arrangements and resettlement needs. Some 143 families comprising 435 people and 469 single failed asylum seekers left under the assisted voluntary return scheme from 1 April to 31 December 2015, which suggests that the arrangements are working.
I will address some of the specific questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the no right of appeal. I made the point that the wider facts will have been contested in the earlier appeals and examined by the Home Office caseworker, and that therefore a genuine obstacle would be easy to understand —in other words, that there is medical evidence that the person is not fit to travel or that they do not have the necessary travel documents to do so.
Lord Rosser
I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it is not quite as straightforward as just saying that there will be medical evidence; there might be a view on what weight should be attached to that medical evidence and whether it meets the criteria. It cannot all be effectively a tick-box exercise, although I almost get the impression it is being portrayed as such.
Lord Bates
More details will come out. We are working very closely with the local authorities and the Department for Education on what the guidance should be on this. We have to get that joined-up system there to ensure protection, particularly for the families, and work out how it will work. That process is ongoing. As set out in my letter of 21 January and in the substantial document, the review is current. I realise that we had a significant debate on the level of asylum support on 27 October. On page 2, paragraph 6 states:
“As Lord Bates confirmed in the House of Lords on 27 October 2015, we continue to keep the support rate under review”.
We have engaged with a number of stakeholders, including Still Human Still Here, Refugee Action, the Children’s Society and Student Action for Refugees and we will study the results carefully. The review should report in March or April and will provide detailed reasons for the conclusion when it comes through.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the reduction in the number of migrants will be. An impact statement is attached, where the noble Lord will see that we anticipate that an estimated 20% of the failed cohort will return. That is the assumption we have used in the impact assessment. It is not an easy estimate to make, however, for the reasons the noble Lord gave. It cannot be judged on just this one measure but needs to be judged by the wider measures in the Bill, which will make it more difficult for people to rent accommodation, drive or gain employment if they have no right to be here. It is part of the package but that is the assumption.
I come to discontinuation of support. If there is a genuine obstacle, support will continue. If a pregnant woman is not due to give birth within six weeks of the expiry point of the 90-day grace period, she will generally be fit to fly and therefore not eligible for new Section 95A support. If that were not the case, there would be medical grounds to cite a genuine obstacle to being able to travel.
Lord Rosser
I cited what I understand to be the figures from the family returns process. A significant number of the families involved are not dealt with within the three-month period. I suppose I am asking whether the Government agree with those figures, which I understand came from a government analysis. If it is accepted that, under that process, a significant number of families cannot with the best will in the world complete the process within three months, what happens under the 90-day period if there are likewise families with Section 95 support who cannot complete the process for leaving within the 90 days? Or is the Government’s argument that everybody should finish the process within 90 days and any reference to what is happening under the family returns process is somehow not relevant?
Lord Bates
That is, of course, how it is at the moment, but we will bring forward in the regulations means by which we believe we can improve the efficiency of that process and reduce a lot of the complexity in the system, which everyone wants to see removed. That will, in turn, speed up the process so that the vast majority of claims fall well within the 90-day period. That is our intention but it needs to be kept under review so that it is the case.
Lord Rosser
We hope that is achieved and that we get a quicker process. At the moment, however, unless what I am saying about the family returns process is wrong, there is evidence that it will not be possible to complete the process for a significant number of families within 90 days. All I am asking is: if that is the case —and there is no suggestion that the families themselves have contributed to the fact that the process has not been completed in time—will that Section 95 support be continued beyond the 90 days?
Lord Bates
Every case will be different but in a normal case, if someone cannot leave within 90 days, there is probably a genuine obstacle to their doing so. They may not be well enough or they may not have travel documents, in which case they would come into the category of having a genuine obstacle and, therefore, support could continue under new Section 95A.
Railways: South East Flexible Ticketing Scheme
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We are seeing increased co-operation across train operators and we are working closely with the industry to ensure just that. As I have already indicated, there is 73% coverage with the existing operators. In one case, for season ticket holders we already have 22% of the market covered through smart ticketing.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Rail Delivery Group has recently had discussions with the Rail Minister, Claire Perry. She was going to send a formal letter to the group setting out the Government’s expectations on ticketing. In order to clear up any doubts about the current situation and the position with the South East Flexible Ticketing smartcard scheme, and indeed with other schemes, can I ask whether that letter has been sent? If so, will the Minister place a copy in the Library?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have just enjoyed a sandwich lunch with my honourable friend the Rail Minister, and I asked her that question. That letter will be sent shortly, and as soon as it is issued I will ensure that a copy is put in the Library. The noble Lord pointed to wider arrangements. Through the Smart Cities Partnership, nine additional regions are looking at smart ticketing.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness’s question goes wider than busking, but I can tell her that of course the Government have taken action; they have undertaken the biggest housebuilding programme that we have seen for decades. It is important that we work with local authorities to identify where the housing challenges are, face up to that crisis and address the housing issue. As I have already said, the issue of housing is a challenge not just for us in central government but across the country for local government as well.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I remind the Minister that the Question refers to homeless people—it is not exclusive to busking—and therefore the question from my noble friend was entirely legitimate. The reality is that the number of households accepted as homeless has risen by over a third since 2010, while the number of people who sleep rough has increased by over 50%. The Minister seeks to tell us about all the measures the Government are going to take, but could he tell us why they allowed this situation—the increase since 2010 in the number of homeless people and the number of people sleeping rough—to arise in the first place?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord should also look at the record prior to 2010 and what his own party did. We have taken forward the biggest housebuilding project that we have seen for decades. There is an acute problem as regards the housing crisis and people sleeping rough on our streets; we are seeking to address it, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities.
Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will listen, as I know he usually would, to the contributions that have been made on all sides of your Lordships’ House, but especially to those of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence.
As those contributions were being made, my mind went back to those riots in 1981, of course not just in Brixton but in Toxteth in Liverpool. I had been a young Member of Parliament for about 18 months. In the weeks before the riots occurred, I had raised on the Floor of the House in another place the dangerous relationship that had been deteriorating between police and public in that part of Liverpool. Sir Kenneth Oxford was then the chief constable on Merseyside and he took a very provocative view towards the black community in that neighbourhood. I was not entirely surprised when, on a hot summer’s night in 1981, I was asked to come urgently to Upper Parliament Street, where two and a half days of rioting began, in which 1,000 policemen ended up in the local hospital. I dread to think what would have happened if guns had been so readily and easily available on the streets then as they often are now.
As a result of those riots, I visited the home of the young man who had been involved at the very outset, Leroy Cooper, who was a constituent of mine. I sat with him and his father as they described to me how the trigger had taken place on the street in Lodge Lane in Liverpool as an overzealous policeman confronted this young man. It was a traffic incident, which plays exactly into the amendments before your Lordships’ House today—not a car but a motorcycle—and, as a consequence of the anger that had been building up for some time, it erupted and riots occurred which had a devastating effect.
The overuse of stop and search powers at that time, which had been part of the incident, was set aside in the months and years that followed and a much different form of policing emerged. Bernard Hogan-Howe, who became the assistant chief constable on Merseyside, played a leading part in the introduction of strong community policing, having learned the lessons of what had gone before. It would be a tragedy if we were now to turn the clock back. I hope therefore that the Minister will think very carefully about and look at the terms of this very good amendment, Amendment 160, which says that,
“the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to believe the power should be exercised urgently”.
It does not take away the powers. As the right reverend Prelate said, those powers already exist in plenty of statute if there is a need to intervene. But something that could be used and seen as a deliberate attack on one part of our community will do nothing to enhance community relations. It will not foster good policing in our cities and could actually have a deleterious effect.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think very carefully about the arguments that have been deployed today. If he cannot agree today, I hope he will at least hold meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House between now and Report to see whether this could be modified.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon has eloquently set out the reasons for her concerns about Clauses 17 and 18, which create an offence of driving when unlawfully in the UK and give powers to carry out searches relating to driving offences. The Bill provides a power for an authorised officer—police or immigration officers or third parties designated by the Secretary of State—to search premises, including a vehicle or residence, where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that an individual is in possession of a driving licence, is not lawfully resident and the licence is on the premises.
As has already been said, the National Black Police Association has expressed concern at the potential of these provisions to undermine vital work promoting good relations between police and the communities they serve, saying that they could result in a return to the days of sus laws and the police being seen as part of the Immigration Service. Evidence indicates that black and minority ethnic drivers are around twice as likely to be stopped as white drivers.
The situation will not have been made any easier by evidence given by the police to the Commons Public Bill Committee when, as my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon said, a Metropolitan Police chief superintendent explained that they already had a power to stop any vehicle to ascertain ownership and driver details and, having done that, they would then inquire into whether the driver had the authority to drive that vehicle. He went on to say that, to fall within the new provisions in the Bill that we are debating, the police would then most likely need to do a further check with the immigration authorities, which at that stage would give them reasonable grounds—but not necessarily proof—based on a search of the immigration database to believe that the person driving was an illegal immigrant. In other words, these clauses relating to driving could effectively result in adding a routine immigration check into a traffic-stop regime which many in black and minority ethnic groups already regard as operating in a discriminatory fashion.
The points that have been made by my noble friend Lady Lawrence, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and others about the impact of these two clauses on fostering distrust and disharmony between the police and the public require a full and considered response from the Government, including the Government’s assessment of the impact on community cohesion if they disagree with what has been said on these proposed measures. This is yet another potential example in the Bill of measures that are intended by the Government to encourage illegal migrants to depart, by making it harder for them to live and work here, having highly likely unintended adverse consequences—this time for the role of the police, community relations and racial harmony.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving his amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss these important matters. Perhaps I may make some general remarks on the clauses, setting out the Government’s position, and then seek to respond to the very legitimate questions raised by noble Lords.
Clause 17 provides the power for an authorised officer, such as an immigration or police officer, to search people and premises and seize a UK driving licence held by a person not lawfully resident in the UK. It is envisaged that the power will be used primarily by immigration officers as an adjunct to their normal enforcement activities where immigration offenders are apprehended in the community. This represents the best opportunity to remove from circulation UK driving licences which are being used by illegal migrants. This power can be exercised only where there are reasonable grounds to conduct a search: it cannot be used to randomly target members of the public. The power contained in the clause will be used by the police only as a part of targeted, intelligence-led policing.
The Government are clear that this clause will not undermine their work in reforming police stop-and-search powers, nor will it result in random stop and searches being conducted by immigration officials. Home Office immigration enforcement officers would use the power where they, for example, visit a property or place of employment in response to intelligence received. With the exception of a constable, authorised officers must generally also obtain the consent of a senior officer before conducting a search of premises, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so. A seized licence must be returned to the holder if a decision is taken not to revoke it, or where the holder successfully appeals against a revocation.
Amendment 160 would therefore add an extra constraint on when the power to enter premises to search for a driving licence may be used without the authorisation of a senior officer. This is unnecessary. Clause 17 provides that before searching premises an authorised officer must obtain the authorisation of a senior officer, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so. Amendments 161 and 162 are also unnecessary. The arrangements introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 for the revocation of UK driving licences held by illegal immigrants are well established and operating effectively. They are not subject to significant delays, which would warrant introducing hard and fast time limits for the retention of seized licences pending revocation action.
Amendment 162 would limit the ability to retain licences if they are revoked after being seized. This conflicts with one of the main aims of the clause: namely, to remove revoked licences from circulation. It is already a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to retain a revoked licence but, despite this, only a very small proportion are returned.
Lord Rosser
“( ) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if, at the time of driving a motor vehicle, he or she had a reasonable belief that he or she had a legal right to remain in the United Kingdom and acted in good faith.”
Lord Rosser
As was said in the previous discussion, the Bill creates a new criminal offence where a person,
“drives a motor vehicle on a road or other public place at a time when the person is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom”.
Of course, this new offence is part of the Government’s objective, as set out so clearly in the Explanatory Notes, of,
“making it harder to live and work illegally in the UK”,
to encourage those who do not have the appropriate immigration status to “depart voluntarily” and, where they do not do so, to use other measures in the Bill to “support enforced removals”. As with the new offence of illegal working for employees, however, there appears to be no defence for this new offence in relation to driving.
The purpose of our amendment is to seek to provide such a defence for those prosecuted for driving while illegally in the UK if they can show that they had reason to believe that they had the legal right to be here. For example, there is the kind of person who has been sponsored but, unbeknown to them, there is something wrong with the sponsorship. As a result, they may fall foul of this new offence because they do not have the status they should, although they had reasonable belief of their right to be here and acted completely in good faith. Having a criminal record has serious implications for a person under immigration control, as such records can never be spent for immigration and nationality purposes, must always be declared and can form the basis for refusing a person leave, settlement or citizenship.
During the debate on this issue in the Commons, the Solicitor-General confirmed that effectively there was no defence for this new criminal offence. He said in response to a question on this point that a person who was prosecuted for this new offence would have the opportunity to,
“put in mitigation about their belief as to whether they were legally present in the UK, and that would affect any sentence that might be passed”.
Of course, that is about mitigation of sentence, not a defence to the charge for which a person can be sent to prison for 12 months. The second point made by the Solicitor-General was that,
“the Crown Prosecution Service will have guidance to ensure that migrants are not inappropriately prosecuted for this”,
new criminal offence. He went on:
“Should a migrant be able to genuinely show that they believed themselves to be legally present, the public interest test … would apply”.
In other words, as with the offence of illegal working for which there is no defence for those employed, it would be up to the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than Parliament to decide whether there is a defence against an offence for which there is no such provision made in the Bill.
In the Commons, the Government accepted and recognised the reasons behind this amendment but maintained that it was “very broad”, “very subjective” and would create scenarios in which,
“a defendant might claim they had reason to believe they were in the UK legally, simply because they had misunderstood the date on which their leave expired”.
Yet that is precisely the kind of question that the DPP and Crown Prosecution Service will presumably have to resolve in carrying out the Solicitor-General’s view that if a migrant can genuinely show that they believe themselves to be legally present, the public interest test would apply. Why then can the courts not be relied on to make appropriate decisions on reasonable belief, as called for in this amendment, and thus put a defence against this new offence in the Bill, debated and agreed by Parliament?
When the question was raised in the Commons debate about why this new offence was needed at all, since it appeared that the police were not seeking this new power and had not found any gap in their ability to deal with drivers who do not have regular status, the Solicitor-General, replying for the Government, said that there was,
“a loophole involving people who are unlawfully here … who are driving with foreign-issued licences”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 3/11/15; cols. 307-08.]
For my benefit and to get it on the record, could the Minister spell out in detail what the existing problem is in relation to people who are here unlawfully and who drive with foreign-issued licences, as opposed to those here unlawfully but driving with British driving licences or no driving licence at all, and which can be resolved only with the creation of this new offence? It would also be helpful if the Minister in his response—I hope it will be favourable but am not too sure of that—could place on record the Government’s assessment of the extent to which this new criminal offence of driving a motor vehicle while not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom will reduce the number of people not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom, and the basis on which that conclusion has been reached. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in their Amendment 163. It does not seem an absolute offence. Therefore, Amendment 163 seems reasonable.
We have Amendments 164, 169, 171, 172, and 173 in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendment 164 would add to new Section 24D by placing a time limit on the time taken to make a decision whether to prosecute, when someone has had their vehicle detained, having been arrested for driving when unlawfully in the United Kingdom, of one month from the date of arrest. It could well be that the person arrested is a professional driver, who relies on the vehicle for their livelihood and, if that person turns out to be innocent of the offence, it could have serious implications for him if the vehicle is not returned to him promptly.
Amendment 169 is designed to restrict the ability to detain the vehicle if it belongs to a third party. Could the Minister clarify whether it is intended to detain vehicles innocently lent to others who are subsequently found to be in the UK illegally?
Amendments 171, 172 and 173 are to query the issue of all premises warrants, in new Section 24E(6)(b) and 24E(7), to search any premises owned or controlled by the person arrested for driving illegally to detain the car he was driving—particularly, as stated in new Section 24E(10), when such an all premises warrant cannot be issued in Scotland. Can the Minister explain why such a wide-ranging warrant is necessary in England and Wales but not in Scotland?
The Government also have Amendments 174 and 175 in this group, which widens the power even further, not just to all premises but not restricting such a power to a constable only, which is what was in the Bill originally. Surely, the power is broad enough as it is.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, you are more likely to know whether you are disqualified than whether there is a problem over leave to remain.
Lord Rosser
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this relatively brief debate, and I thank the Minister for his response and for his willingness to look again at this issue of absolute liability with regard to this new offence prior to Report.
My feeling at the moment is that the Government want a defence to be available, but want it to be exercised through the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service through not prosecuting cases rather than putting it in the Bill. Of course, if the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service came to the conclusion that they did not think that there was a case for somebody to say that they believed that they had the appropriate status to be in this country and they were prosecuted, when it got to court the court would not have a chance to look at the grounds that had been put forward, because it would be an absolute offence and the individual would presumably be found guilty.
I hope that the noble Lord will look hard at this issue as to whether it is better for the courts to make the decisions on whether an individual has made a case that they genuinely believed they had the appropriate immigration status with regard to this offence. However, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness just said what I would have said, so I add only one plea to the Minister: would he please explain the point of the regulations? We have discussed them before on previous immigration Bills and they keep coming back because they are so obviously unfair. We have to know whether they are intended as a deterrent, because if they are they will not have the slightest effect.
Lord Rosser
I rise very briefly just to say that I await the Government’s response with interest. I am not sure what the argument will be against being able to pay the immigration health surcharge incrementally. On exemptions from the surcharge, if the Government will not go down the road of the amendment, I await with interest to hear what their argument is for not having these exemptions.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I shall make some general points in response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which we had the opportunity to discuss outside the Chamber a little bit before we reached this stage. I took the opportunity to look into it in more detail with officials.
For those reading this in the Official Report, it might be helpful if I address the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the reason for this provision. The total cost of visitors and temporary migrants accessing NHS services in England alone has been estimated at £2 billion per year in 2013. Around £950 million was spent on temporary migrants, such as students and workers, from whom no charge was recoverable. Non-EEA temporary migrants—workers and family—here for more than 12 months had a weighted average cost to the NHS of just more than £800 per head, and a total estimated gross cost to the NHS of more than £500 million per year. Non-EEA students—for any length of stay—had a weighted average cost to the NHS of just more than £700 per head, with a total gross cost to the NHS of £430 million per year.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, made under the Immigration Act 2014, requires that non-EEA temporary migrants who make an immigration application to come to the UK for six months or more, or who apply to extend their stay in the UK, make a direct contribution to the NHS via payment of an immigration health surcharge. The Home Office collects the charge as part of the immigration application process and payment of it is mandatory. If the charge is not paid, the applicant is not processed. Temporary migrants pay upfront an amount that covers the entire period of their permission to stay in the UK. Where an application is refused, rejected or withdrawn, the charge is fully refunded.
The charge has been set at a competitive level of £200 per annum per migrant, and at a discounted rate of £150 per annum for students—well below the true cost to the NHS of treating these migrants, as stated in my opening remarks. It is also set below the rate that migrants expect to pay for health insurance in competitor countries, such as Australia and the USA. For example, a student applying to Harvard in the USA would, in most cases, have to pay a fee of around £600 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s most comprehensive health plan would cost an additional £1,500 per year. In contrast, the surcharge for a foreign student applying to the UK would be only £150 per year.
Upfront payment of the full amount of the charge covering the length of the visa period is administratively far simpler than requiring migrants to make multiple payments of the appropriate amount to the Home Office and the Home Office enforcing such a requirement. Any movement to an instalment approach would bring with it considerable administrative and operational burdens. An observation has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the administrative costs. The amendment would raise them. Home Office staff would need to ensure that payments were being made. If they were not, they would need to chase payment and, in some cases, enforcement action might be required, which could involve curtailing a person’s leave.
Payment by instalments would also lead to confusion about entitlement to free treatment and place unnecessary administrative burdens on the NHS, as NHS staff would have to check at each contact with a patient that they were up to date with their payments. There would also be uncertainty about whether our health system would actually receive all the expected income from the surcharge, which would be an unwelcome prospect for the NHS.
Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe on his Bill, which addresses an issue on which he and many others feel strongly and have actively campaigned for a considerable time.
As my noble friend said in his powerful and persuasive speech, the Bill lowers the maximum alcohol limits permissible when driving in the UK, from 35 to 22 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. It also provides for a similar reduction in relation to urine. As has already been said, the effect of these changes is to bring the drink-driving limits in the rest of the UK in line with those applicable since December 2014 in Scotland. The lower limit was introduced in Scotland following a consultation in which 74% of respondents backed a reduction in the drink-driving limit.
The Bill is driven by concerns over the devastating impact of alcohol on the ability to drive safely. Department for Transport figures indicate that, in 2013, some 15% of all deaths in reported road traffic accidents involved at least one driver over the limit, and that around 250 people died in accidents involving drink-driving. In addition to these figures, there are those who are injured, seriously and otherwise, in drink-drive accidents for whom, as I understand it, the figure was some 8,300 in 2013. The 2013 casualty figures relating to drink-drive accidents do show a fall from the previous year, but they are still far too high.
I was a sitting lay magistrate for many years, and dealing with drink-driving cases was an all too regular occurrence. The frequency with which defendants who were well over the limit claimed they had had little more than “half a lager” never ceased to amaze me. In the majority of cases I sat on, the defendant had not been involved in an accident but had been stopped for other reasons, including odd or irregular driving, and been found to be over the limit. The number of people driving on our roads whose driving ability is impaired by the amount of alcohol they have drunk is, of course, far, far higher than the stark death and injury statistics indicate, but each and every person who drives having recently drunk alcohol is a potential killer if their ability to drive—and speed of response to what is happening around them on the road—is impaired.
The official drink-drive accident statistics only cover incidents where there was a failed roadside breath test based on the current limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, or where there was a refusal to give a breath test specimen. As I understand it, the official figures do not cover accidents where the level of alcohol was below the current limit, but in excess of the limit in Scotland and, indeed, in virtually all other European countries. If I am correct, to that extent, the official figures almost certainly do not reflect the number of accidents and casualties which are related to the consumption of alcohol by one or more of the drivers involved in the accident. According to the European Transport Safety Council, the United Kingdom—outside Scotland—has the joint highest drink-driving rate in Europe, and the most common limit applied across the EU is the same as that proposed in the Bill. Four countries in the EU apply a zero alcohol limit. From this month, Department of Health recommended limits on weekly alcohol intake for men are either the lowest or about the lowest in Europe. However, when it comes to drink-driving, we have just about the highest alcohol figure in Europe allowable under the law.
It has been reported that, since the lower limit was introduced in Scotland, police figures show that the number of drink-driving offences there have fallen compared with the same nine-month period the previous year, even though, presumably, the number of potential offenders—and thus offences—has increased with the lower limit. However, not everyone in Scotland supports the lower limit. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association has apparently described the law change as a “catastrophe” for the sector, with a 5% decline in sales across outlets since the previous year. If this is the case, it perhaps also gives a feel for the extent to which alcohol was being purchased—and is probably still being purchased, albeit at a lower level—by people intending to drive. People’s jobs, of course, matter: so too, though, do people’s lives.
The Government have been saying since March 2013 that they will publish a Green Paper on improving the safety of newly qualified drivers. To the best of my knowledge, that Green Paper has yet to appear. In October 2013, a Transport Research Laboratory study, commissioned by the Government, proposed the introduction of graduated driver licensing, the aim of which is to enable young and novice drivers to build up ability and experience through a structured and phased approach. Apparently, this study was only made public through a Freedom of Information request from the insurance industry. Graduated driver licensing exists in various forms in a number of countries. The exact components differ, but one of the more common elements is a lower alcohol limit. The Transport Research Laboratory study said that the proposed introduction of graduated driver licensing should include a lower alcohol limit but, as I understand it, went on to state that this should preferably be extended to apply to all drivers. I do not wish to argue the case for graduated driver licensing, but it would also be helpful to know from the Minister what weight—or otherwise—the Government attach to the Transport Research Laboratory study’s view on lowering the alcohol limit for all drivers.
The Government have stated that tackling drink-driving is a priority, which is hardly a surprising stance and one that we of course share. But they have also said, in a Written Answer last October, that they would be interested in seeing,
“a robust and comprehensive evaluation of the change to the Scottish drink drive limit”,
rather than that they want to introduce similar limits here. I therefore assume that the question of an evaluation is one that the Minister will develop in his response. Given that tackling drink-driving is rightly a priority, I take it that the Government are actively, rather than passively, pursuing the question of when such an evaluation is likely to be undertaken and completed, and by whom. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Finally, perhaps he will also say what issues or considerations the Government think such an evaluation should address in order for it to be comprehensive—the word they have used in relation to it.
Population Increase: Migration
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
I hope that was not an admission that my noble friend is an overstayer; if so, she is a very welcome one. For most Commonwealth countries, no visa is required, and it is absolutely right to recognise the special relationship we have with them. When people come on one type of visa, it is normal in most jurisdictions around the world that once the purpose for which they were granted access has expired and they wish to change it, they go back and reapply. We are simply saying that that ought to remain the case.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister referred to the Government’s objective of net migration in the tens of thousands. Bearing in mind that the implementation of that objective seems to have been slightly delayed, can he tell us when it will be achieved? Since this Government like to assert that they are in control of our borders, what do they expect the net migration figure to be for 2016 and 2017?
Lord Bates
The reality is that in some ways, we are victims of our own success. We have an economy that creates more jobs in certain counties than the entire European Union has managed to achieve in all 27 countries, and we have the only universities in Europe that are in the top 10 in the world. When we have that blessed combination of circumstances, it is not surprising that so many people want to come here and that people who are here do not want to leave.
Railways: South-West Network
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said in my original response, the Government have made commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Dawlish, and we have completed the task there. He also referenced the new GRIP study and the issues around governance and finding funding for that. The department is looking at that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Let me just be clear on what the Minister is saying. He said that my noble friend Lord Berkeley was factually incorrect. It is not factually incorrect that the Department for Transport and Network Rail have confirmed to the Peninsula Rail Task Force that there will be no further funding for development in the south-west prior to 2019 and no funding for the two key Network Rail studies on journey time reduction and electrification, which are integral to a Peninsula Rail Task Force report commissioned by the Department for Transport and the Prime Minister and due for publication this summer. The issue was raised in the Commons yesterday with the Prime Minister, who was unable to give a commitment over the funding. Can the Minister say whether the government climb-down on this issue will come this week or next week?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
This is about investment in the future of our railways. I recognise the Peninsula Rail Task Force’s concern to push forward on the detailed studies on the opportunities for line enhancements. I, too, want to see this work happen, and the Government want to see it happen, in a way that is appropriate to the changes that will, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, come from the Bowe review. We will also work with Network Rail to ensure that whatever future development is required for the next rail investment period, CP6, it is made. The strategy is planned for publication in July 2017.
Asylum Seekers
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the requirements placed on asylum seekers in order to access food, shelter and other resources, such as the requirement for asylum seekers in Cardiff to wear coloured wristbands in order to access food.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, Clearsprings Ready Homes has announced the immediate end of the use of wristbands to access food. The Home Office has asked for an assurance from all accommodation providers that there are no further policies or practices that allow asylum seekers to be identified as such in public.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, a Government may decide to outsource the provision of temporary accommodation for asylum seekers, but it is the Government who approve who should secure these contracts and government Ministers who have a responsibility for ensuring that the contracts are appropriately delivered. Why have government Ministers failed to carry out their responsibilities? First, it was only after national newspapers exposed what was going on with red doors in Middlesbrough and wristbands to access food in Cardiff that action was taken. Secondly, the Government, as the Minister has now said, are only now busily trying to find out what is happening with the delivery of other similar contracts they have approved. Government Ministers can outsource the provision of accommodation and food for asylum seekers, but they cannot outsource their own direct responsibility and accountability for how those contracts are delivered and their failure to monitor them properly. Do the Government agree?
Lord Bates
I agree that we have an obligation to ensure that the most vulnerable people who come into this country seeking asylum are placed in positions where they are cared for and safe. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know the circumstances surrounding this. The asylum seekers were in initial accommodation in Cardiff. In that accommodation were people whose asylum claims and financial needs had been assessed and who then receive a financial contribution for food, and there were people who had just arrived who get full board and three meals a day. The wristbands were used to identify those people who were eligible for the three meals a day. I am not asking the House to accept that that is the way it should be—the practice has stopped—but that was the explanation for it. Certainly, our position is that the safety and security of asylum seekers—and the dignity and humanity with which we treat them—should be paramount. They are inspected by the Home Office on a routine basis—indeed, they have been inspected by the National Audit Office as well—and we look forward to the reports coming back.