| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With regard to the outcome of the consultation in this area, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which ended on 5th July, we do not yet have the full analysis. I am told that this will not be available until mid-August. We do not propose any exemptions to the charge except to prospective employers of nationals of countries which have signed and ratified the Council of Europe charter or the European Social Charter in its revised state.
Currently, these countries make up approximately 5.5 per cent of all work permit applications received. In the year 2001-02 just over 8,500 applications were received from such countries. I could give the break down but I do not believe that it would greatly illuminate our debate.
We do not want to pre-empt our consultation exercise. We are committed to publishing the findings by 22nd September this year. To further respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, I am advised that 68 charities and not-for-profit organisations were in contact with the Home Office as part of that consultation exercise. We can probably assume from that it was fairly broadly cast and ranged fairly fully.
We consulted a wide range of employers. They included charities and not-for-profit organisations. But we have not yet collated the outcome of the information fully.
At this point it would be premature and defeat the very object of consultation—after all, it was the product of earlier debate—and pre-empt the findings of our formal consultation exercise. I hope that noble Lords will not seek to press—they have hinted that they will not—the amendment.
In this context, it is right that the question of exemptions is dealt with in secondary legislation. The clause, as drafted, allows exemptions to be included in regulations and enacted by statutory instrument. Regulations can more easily in that form be amended in future rather than in primary legislation. It is in an adaptable state and better able to reflect changes that
perhaps have taken place in the labour market which make exemptions from fee-paying desirable from time to time.Should our consultation exercise provide suitable evidence that we should look at the exemption of not-for-profit organisations, we will need to be clear on the detail of which organisations this should include. We will need to ensure that the regulations clearly define which not-for-profit organisations will be covered by any exemption. I say that because a blanket exemption for charities could involve exempting private schools, for example, many of which are registered in that way. If we conclude that all or certain not-for-profit organisations should not be exempted at this stage, the provisions as drafted allow us the flexibility to introduce further exemptions in future.
Also, because any regulations passed under the provisions must be passed by negative resolution, there will be an opportunity for Members of the Committee to object to non-exemption, if they so wish.
I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been moved. We hope that the Committee will await our full analysis of the consultation exercise, which has been valuable. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I certainly agree that it will be important in framing regulations for the Government to be certain about which organisations should be defined. The consultation that they are carrying out should help them to hone that definition of the relevant organisations.
The Minister will appreciate that our difficulty is that because the regulations will cover more than just tax-exempt charities, however they may be defined—they will cover other matters, such as the sliding scale of payments for all other organisations—we may end up with a statutory instrument that is wholly admirable in one part, but entirely objectionable in another. It is a draconian step for noble Lords to pray against a statutory instrument and carry it to the death. So it is all the more important that, between us, we ensure that the definitions at which the Government arrive in the statutory instrument will hold true and be accepted by all sides.
I am grateful to the Minister for promising that the analysis will be published in mid-August. Before I formally beg leave to withdraw the amendment, when the analysis is published in the recess, will it be in the Library or in the Printed Paper Office? How may noble Lords gain access to it before we must consider tabling amendments for Report?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With the customary "nodding dog" approach to information and intelligence passing around your Lordships' House, I am advised that we will place it in the Library.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222A not moved.]
Clause 107 [Authority to carry]:
[Amendment No. 222B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: There is a point to be made on Clause 107 stand part of which the Committee should be made aware. The clause introduces a new scheme that provides the Secretary of State with power to penalise airlines and other carriers who do not obtain an authority to carry a person where an authority-to-carry scheme has been imposed. The clause is extremely broadly drafted and the Secretary of State can impose different schemes for different classes of passenger and for different classes of carrier. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make whatever regulations he needs to operate such schemes.
Has the Minister received any representations from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees about the clause? As we understand it, the commission believes that the authority-to-carry scheme may actively impede the right to asylum. It considers that it would obstruct admission to the asylum determination system and that the practical effect of the scheme may be such as to undermine the spirit of the convention.
We are already making it as difficult as possible for people who might be eligible for asylum to get to the United Kingdom in the first place. This is one more impediment in the way of people who have genuine reasons to fear persecution in their home country and would like to come here and apply for asylum. The authority-to-carry scheme puts a huge obstacle in the path of anyone wishing to come here by a regular, scheduled service. It requires more justification than we have heard so far.
Lord Berkeley: Can my noble friend explain how Clause 107 differs from Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971, which also requires carriers to pay someone's return fare or pay a penalty if they have brought in people who do not have the right travel documents?
Lord Filkin: I shall respond first to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about UNHCR, say a few words about the intent of Clause 107 and then respond to the point about Section 27.
The UNHCR has expressed some concern that authority to carry schemes could impede the right to asylum and has amplified that by saying that it might obstruct admission to the asylum determination system. The Government's view is that ATC schemes are designed to identify people who are known already to pose a security or immigration control threat. They would not normally identify a person who had not previously been to the UK. Most people coming to the UK to seek asylum who had not previously applied for asylum here would not be known to the system.
The clause provides a power to make regulations allowing for the future creation of a scheme. The Government think that there will be sense in exploring such schemes, but we are not in a position to do so imminently. The purpose of pre-screening is to identify people who are a known security or immigration control threat—nothing more than that. That would include people who are known to be subject to a deportation order or an international travel ban, who have been excluded at the direction of the Home Secretary or who present documents that are not acceptable because they are false or do not properly establish the identity of the holder. It is not intended to make decisions on a person's admissibility under immigration rules.
In making regulations, we intend to provide avenues for redress and for inquiries to be made from the country of origin. However, we believe that the schemes have potential advantages for travellers generally. Similar arrangements have been successful in Australia. In any event, any scheme would be introduced using the affirmative resolution procedure, which would give ample opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important, however, that we are able to explore the option and, if appropriate, introduce regulations to introduce such a scheme.
The muse is silent on the question about Section 27 of the 1971 Act. I shall write to my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Lord Avebury: Presumably, the UNHCR made representations in discussion with the Home Office. Does the Minister think that his department has satisfied the concerns initially expressed by the UNHCR?
Lord Filkin: I do not know whether the representations were made in dialogue or in writing. Nevertheless, I shall examine the matter and come back to the noble Lord.
Schedule 8 [Carriers' Liability]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page