| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, brings a particular expertise to this debate as a former director of the Refugee Council. What the noble Lord has said--along with his colleague the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury--displays a continuing dislike of the Bill that was passed by this House and another place. Therefore, their comments tonight come as absolutely no surprise. However, some interesting points have been raised and I shall address them in a moment.
First, I should like to explain briefly the function of the Immigration Rules that we are debating tonight. The cornerstone of United Kingdom immigration law is the Immigration Act 1971 and various subsequent amending Acts, most recently the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The 1971 Act empowers my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament rules as to the practice to be followed by those who administer the Act. Those rules have been amended and developed over the years to reflect changes in circumstance and policy.
The current Statement of Changes was laid on 31st October and took effect on 1st November. It makes a small number of miscellaneous changes to the rules, including an amended definition of public funds, provision for the revocation of an entry clearance, and other minor changes.
In turning to some of the specific points raised, perhaps I may say that many of them went wide of the regulations, going right back to the definition of "refugee". If noble Lords will forgive me, I shall try to confine my remarks to the points that apply to the regulations that are before the House. If necessary, I shall write to noble Lords on other matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, gave some specific examples. I first heard of them tonight across the Dispatch Box and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I write to him on the particular detail because he has rightly and understandably set out some particularly complex issues because he wants to test the robustness not only of the regulations but also of the safeguards. Perhaps I may first make an interim response.
The first example was that of a father who was a British citizen and who brought his wife and a child into the country for a period of one year. The question was: at the end of that year, if they applied for further leave to remain, would they be able to claim for the children? I have to make the assumption that they came for one year and applied for temporary leave to remain in the first instance and came in on the basis of "no recourse to public funds". One has to assume that they spent one year with no recourse to public funds, so why their
Another example related to a married couple, again with temporary permission to stay. I believe that in that case the husband left temporarily, the wife remaining behind. Again, the matter probably depends on the conditions under which they were allowed to enter temporarily--presumably, again with no recourse to public funds. If that was the condition under which they entered the country, presumably that would be the condition under which they would be expected to stay in the country for the prescribed limited time.
The third example raised the question of whether people who properly receive child benefit at present will be affected. My understanding is that someone who was receiving child benefit on 7th October 1996, when the relevant new child benefit regulations came into effect, will continue to receive child benefit until the claim is reviewed.
All three noble Lords mentioned the revocation of entry clearance. The measure has been put in place to close a loophole in the law. We do not want to use the power on a regular basis--that was not the intention--but it is right for entry clearance officers to have the power to revoke an entry clearance where it has clearly been obtained by misrepresentation or where the grounds for issuing it have changed. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who wanted to know who it was intended to hit. Primarily, the power is being introduced to meet those occasions when someone has quite deliberately misled the entry clearance officer and obtained entry clearance in circumstances under which they would not otherwise have gained it. Again, the noble Lord asked how officials in this country would know of that. If they do not know of it, they cannot exercise the power. However, if, subsequent to entry clearance having been secured in another country through the entry clearance officer, they communicate in one way or another to the receiving authorities in this country, that would be grounds for saying that the power could be used.
I was asked what safeguards have been put in place. Entry clearance officers have been given clear guidance that the power is to be used only in the most clear-cut circumstances of misrepresentation. Any decision will need to be seen and approved by a senior officer. The Migration and Visa Division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be informed--
Lord Avebury: My Lords, but the wording does not say that. It does not state "only misrepresentation"; it also deals with the case where material facts are not disclosed. Will the Minister also address that point and say in what circumstances a person who has already been granted leave to enter for a limited period may have entry clearance revoked on it coming to light that a third party has failed to disclose material facts to the entry clearance officer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it covers cases where the entry clearance has been secured either by
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords; I shall deal with that immediately. If there is no fresh evidence, that is the end of it. However, if there is fresh evidence relating to an application, that fresh evidence will be included on the ground that an appeal would be granted if fresh evidence came to light. Entry clearance that is revoked is revoked on the basis that it was secured under false pretences.
I was asked what the Government will do to ensure that those who have been innocently affected will have proper recourse to a reconsideration of their case. In all instances where an entry clearance has been revoked the new facts surrounding the case will be considered--that is the point that I have just made--and a fresh decision will be made. While the decision to revoke an entry clearance will not attract a right of appeal, the Government have decided that any fresh decision will attract a right of appeal; in other words, where the initial decision was one which would have attracted a right of appeal, refusal of a fresh application will also do so. However, in all instances, the grounds for turning down the fresh application will be explained in detail to the applicant. It is not, however, an automatic assumption that a fresh entry clearance will not be granted.
The noble Lords, Lord Dubs, and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to local authorities. In effect, these rule changes deal with changes to funds which are supplied largely by central government. Some of them are administered by local authorities. The changes made here are not connected with the matters covered by the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins.
The definition of "public funds" has been revised to include three additional benefits: housing accommodation and assistance, child benefit, and the jobseekers' allowance. As a result of the scrutiny process, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Social Security have recently made provision, as noble Lords know, to prohibit access to those benefits by overseas nationals on limited leave.
A recent rule change to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred added certain other benefits: attendance allowance, disability working allowance, disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance. The purpose of the definition is that most overseas nationals are admitted to the UK on condition that they can support and accommodate themselves, and any dependants, without recourse to public funds. This definition explains precisely what "public funds" means in that context.
Overseas nationals are entitled to some benefits. The examples would be urgent case payments under income support regulations where someone is temporarily
Preventing abuse of public funds is a proper concern of the Government. It is a serious matter, and there are substantial savings to be made. A survey of immigration offenders undertaken as part of the scrutiny on enforcement of immigration laws in 1994 indicated that about 25 per cent. of offenders had received income support or other means-tested benefits. The DSS estimates that savings of about £45 million can be made over the next three years by denying overseas nationals access to child benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was concerned about consolidation of the rules, something with which I have enormous sympathy. As he knows, from time to time rule changes are consolidated into a revised set. I understand that it was last done in October 1994. We are, of course, aware that a further consolidation might be convenient, and we undertake to do that. I cannot say exactly when, but the point is taken.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was concerned about the availability of information on the Internet. I have not received prior notice of that point, but a certain amount of information about immigration--I believe that the noble Lord recognised this--is available on the Internet; for example, the new guidance on the prevention of illegal working. We shall, of course, look at what more we can do in that respect. It seems to be an effective way of reaching a wide audience.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked where the exceptions to the prohibition on access to child benefit are set out. They are set out in the child benefit regulations of which the noble Lord was unsuccessful in obtaining a copy. They are people recognised as refugees; people with unlimited leave to enter or remain; people with exceptional leave to remain; EEA nationals; nationals of states covered by EC agreements; and people covered by reciprocal agreements with other countries.
The proposed changes to the immigration rules are sensible. They are practical measures which will contribute to the Government's policy of an immigration control which is firm, fair and effective. I commend them to the House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their helpful contributions, and I thank the Minister for her clear examination of the rules and her attempt immediately to answer the questions that we put to her.
It is no secret that many of us dislike the original Bill, so the Minister can hardly be surprised that that came out in the debate. I appreciate that I gave her a couple
There were two points in what she said about other matters which were not clear to me. One was that, in talking about the High Court decision and the burden on local authorities, despite her attempt to deal with the issue, what was not clear to me was the consequence of the changes of the rules about which we are talking tonight in terms of the possible extra burden on local authorities, whether the Government accepted there would be such an extra burden, and what they were doing to help local authorities to meet it. That is rather different from the High Court decision, although I agree that I linked the two points.
I am also not clear, when entry clearance has been revoked, in what circumstances there is a right of appeal, and in what circumstances there is not. I assumed that revocation of an entry clearance meant that no right of appeal was possible. I believe that the Minister might have been saying that there could be a new application. That is not quite clear.
Perhaps I may agree with the Minister that of course we all want to prevent abuse of public funds. No one would for a moment accept that there should be an abuse of public funds, but equally it is important that people
Finally, perhaps I may make another and a different suggestion to the Minister: I appreciate that we have changes in immigration rules quite frequently. That is understandable. Sometimes they are clear and require no further explanation. Given the number of different regulations and Acts of Parliament to which these changes referred, and with which they were linked, in this instance it might have been helpful were the Government to have produced a short explanation of the effect of the changes in such a way that we could more easily make the link between these changes and previous legislation and regulations. It might have saved time this evening. I know that it is done occasionally with proposals that the Government put forward. I just leave with the Minister the thought whether in future, where changes in immigration rules and other delegated powers are complicated, some simple explanation of their impact and effect might not be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
6.41 p.m.
6.55 p.m.
9 Dec 1996 : Column 929House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |