Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Sharpe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling Amendment 138, which I will deal with first Before the introduction of the new points-based system, the Government commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee—the MAC—to advise, over three reports, on the impacts of EEA migration on the economy and society in the UK, how to align the immigration system with a modern industrial strategy, what best practice could be used to attract the skills from around the world that the UK labour market needs, and issues around salary thresholds in the context of the immigration system. When undertaking its work, the MAC looked at impacts on the economy and public services, as well as on the welfare of the resident population, as a matter of course In addition, the Home Office published detailed impact assessments for the main features of the new points-based system, setting out the policy objectives, intended effects and likely impacts, including for the skilled worker route, the global talent route and the graduate route Both the Home Office and the independent MAC keep the operation of the immigration system under regular review, and the Home Office will fully evaluate the new immigration system in due course. The MAC published its second annual report on 15 December, which looked at a range of topics, including the current labour market and the role of immigration. Its next commissioned report to be published and laid before Parliament, expected in April, will be a review of the impact of the ending of free movement on the social care sector. On the ending of free movement, it is worth noting that while it has tightened requirements for EU and EEA nationals coming to the UK to work, the broader skills threshold and lower salary threshold have benefited non-EEA nationals who want to come to the UK. The global market is not focused just on the EEA On Amendment 141, the Government of course recognise that we should always be striving for maximum efficiency. Making decisions quickly and accurately is in the best interests of the individual concerned, as well as representing value for money for the taxpayer and, where there is abuse of the immigration system, ensuring that it is dealt with effectively The Government do not think, however, that paying management consultants to look into these matters later this year is necessary, well timed or a good use of public money. I must observe that when we are talking about consultants, we are usually abused by the Opposition Benches for overspending on them. Reports by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the National Audit Office and others continue to provide insights and good practice to build on, as well as highlight the complexities and frustrations of the system within which Home Office staff have to operate I should like to assure noble Lords that, as part of our work to operationalise the Bill, we are drawing up plans to monitor and evaluate its impacts and to develop the evidence base to support further policy work. We also publish immigration quarterly statistics, including on asylum and returns I turn to Amendments 141A, 191 and 193. I can assure noble Lords that the Home Office publishes a whole range of immigration data on a regular basis and has done so for many years. We regularly publish statistics on data collected under the exit checks programme, which shows the proportion of people known to have left the country or obtained further leave to remain by the end of their visas. It cannot, however, show the number of people who have overstayed their visas, as they may have left the country and their departure has not been linked to their visa We regularly review the statistics that we publish as a department in line with the code of practice for statistics and, where it is clearly in the public interest to do so, we will publish new statistics and amend existing statistics to ensure that they continue to provide transparency around key government policies. We have recently announced our intention to publish a quarterly statistics report on irregular migration, which will include statistics on the number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the first release will be February—this month Where it is clearly in the public interest to have more frequent releases of information, we will consider that, as we have done with the EU settlement scheme, for which we publish monthly statistics. However, we must weigh up the need for more statistics against other considerations. This includes the practicalities and costs of producing robust, assured data derived from our operational systems, presenting data in a way that enhances the public’s understanding of key issues and puts the data into appropriate context, as well as the need to prioritise the department’s resources I turn to the specific elements of Amendment 141A. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked for reassurance as to the steps taken to monitor the operation of each visa regime. The UK keeps its visa regime under regular review. Decisions on changes are always taken in the round and a range of factors are considered. As part of this, we assess both visa national and non-visa national schemes in terms of risk and reward to UK interests, using data from a range of sources that span across immigration and national security interests The Government are committed to strengthening the security of our borders by ensuring that everyone who wishes to travel to the UK, except British and Irish citizens, has permission to do so before they travel. To fill the current gap in advance permissions, we will introduce an electronic travel authorisation scheme—the ETA scheme—which has been referred to already, for visitors and passengers transiting through the UK who do not currently need a visa for short stays or who do not already have an immigration status prior to travelling, which will be discussed in more detail on the last day of Committee Noble Lords further asked for details on how overstayers are tracked and monitored within the UK. The Home Office uses a multifaceted approach to tackling illegal migration, balancing the most effective measures with ensuring the proper and efficient use of taxpayers’ money. I was asked why it is so difficult to remove people who have overstayed. We deal with significant and complex challenges when seeking to return those with no right to be in the UK to their country of origin or lawful place of return. They can include travel documentation, late applications, late appeals and broader non-compliance with a lawful returns process. The Government are doing everything possible to reduce legal challenges and to increase the numbers of those not entitled to remain in the UK being removed In answer to a question, somewhat tangentially, on the Covid-19 pandemic, it has affected our ability to remove as many people as in previous years. That is obviously due to travel restrictions being in place, among other things, including fewer scheduled airlines operating, and significant disruption to other services that support the removal of failed asylum seekers, such as court closures and delays Overstaying is against the law, unnecessarily costs the taxpayer money and is unfair on law-abiding migrants who come to the UK through the legal channels. Those who have no right to remain in the UK and do not return home voluntarily should be in no doubt of our determination to remove them. The Home Office takes its responsibilities to uphold the law with the utmost rigour. This Bill and the wider New Plan for Immigration, the most comprehensive reform in decades, will provide the path to fixing this broken asylum and illegal migration system There will always be some who refuse to comply with the Immigration Rules without contact with the relevant authorities and I assure the Committee that the Home Office never gives up trying to trace those individuals and act against them. For those in the UK with no right to stay, we offer an in-house voluntary return service to aid their removal from the UK. Ultimately, there are those who will not leave the UK; we will arrest, detain and remove those who are most resolute in maintaining an unlawful presence in the UK. Given all that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.