HL Deb 13 April 2000 vol 612 cc354-64

7.31 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order covers an area that was discussed extensively during the Special Standing Committee stage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and on Report. During the passage of the 1999 Act through Parliament, the Government consulted widely and listened carefully to all of the issues raised. A number of amendments were made as a result of the consultation process. Indeed, one of those amendments was to ensure that the order-making powers in these sections would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It may help your Lordships if I set out in some detail the order's purpose and effect.

What is the purpose of the order? Under current law, leave must be given to all non-EEA passengers arriving from outside the common travel area (UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) "in writing". In practice, that means stamping each and every passport on every occasion. In 1998–99, some 84 million passengers arrived at UK ports of entry and we estimate that that will increase by about 5 per cent each year over the next three years. Non-EEA arrivals accounted for 11.5 million. The vast majority of passengers are genuine and present no threat to the integrity of the immigration control.

What the 1999 Act gives us are the means by which we can create a stronger, more focused immigration control. Greater operational flexibility, combined with a better use of information technology and interagency co-operation, will allow us not only to identify and therefore expedite the movement of the many millions of genuine visitors, businessmen and women and students who travel to the United Kingdom each year, but also to free our resources to focus on the increasingly sophisticated methods now being used to try to circumvent the immigration control.

In accordance with a general commitment that we gave during the passage of the Bill, I should like formally to state that in my view the provisions of the order are compatible with the convention rights, as defined by Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

I turn to the order itself. Part I sets out the timing of the order and gives definitions for some of the terminology used.

Part II allows for an entry clearance to have effect as leave to enter. Provided that practical arrangements are in place, we intend that that will apply to entry clearances issued from 30th July 2000 onwards. At present, anyone applying for an entry clearance in order to travel to the UK has their application considered by an entry clearance officer. This consideration normally takes the form of an interview. Having satisfied the entry clearance officer that he or she qualifies for an entry clearance under the Immigration Rules, the holder then travels to the UK. On arrival in the UK, the holder is interviewed again by an immigration officer.

Clearly, there is duplication here, but by providing for the entry clearance to have effect as leave to enter, this will be eliminated. The entry clearance officer will still consider the application in exactly the same way as now and a check will still be made against the warnings index. When the entry clearance is issued, however, Article 3 provides that if it contains the conditions under which the holder is allowed to enter the UK, it will have effect as leave to enter the United Kingdom.

The Foreign Office is also introducing new format entry clearances which will bear the conditions of entry on the face of the entry clearance. This leave will be effective for the period as specified by the entry clearance in its "effective" and "expiry" dates. This means, for example, that an entry clearance issued to a student intending to study at a UK university for three years will be valid for the full three years and will confer leave to enter for the full three years.

In recognition of the increased value being placed on the entry clearance officer's decision, systems will be put in place to monitor and evaluate the quality and integrity of the new arrangements. The joint entry clearance unit, currently being formed in co-operation with the Foreign Office, will play a significant role in this process. My colleague, Barbara Roche, will sit on the joint ministerial committee supervising the joint entry clearance unit.

Of course, there are sound operational reasons why the holder of an entry clearance can be seen by an immigration official on arrival. What we have sought to do is remove the requirement for that officer to "second guess" the decision of the entry clearance officer. The immigration officer will be able to verify that the passport and entry clearance are genuine, that they are presented by the rightful holder, and that the purpose for which it was issued remains the same. If satisfied, the immigration officer will allow the holder to proceed. This will lead to a considerable improvement in processing times for genuine entry clearance holders through the ports, without any substantial loss to the overall integrity of the control. Quite the contrary, as it will allow us to re-direct resources, including the special skills of immigration officers, to areas of greater concern.

The immigration officer has lost none of his powers of examination on arrival. In fact, the immigration officer's powers in this respect have been extended to include the power to cancel leave to enter and entry clearances.

Part III of the order enables immigration officers to grant or refuse leave to enter before a person arrives in the UK; to request information to make that decision; and to give notice of that decision in a form other than in writing. Notices giving or refusing leave to enter may be given by facsimile, electronically or, in the case of visitors, orally. The notice can also be given to a responsible third party; for example, a tour operator, an owner or agent of a ship, aircraft, train, hydrofoil or hovercraft, or to a port manager. How and when the Part III provisions are used will be a matter for local immigration managers, in consultation with carriers and airport managers, and will reflect the needs of the port on a local level and on a daily basis.

Perhaps I may give a few examples of how these powers will impact on the operation of the immigration control. The power to grant leave orally to a visitor, provided by Article 8(3), could be used to clear coach passengers on board their coaches. This would mean an end to the need to offload passengers who present no risk to the immigration control.

The power to grant or refuse leave to enter before a person arrives in the UK has benefits on two levels. For example, with the use of advance passenger information we could pre-clear certain low-risk school groups and recognised reputable tour groups, thereby speeding their progress through the immigration control and so removing the need for detailed, individual examination on arrival. Alternatively, we might wish to send immigration officers overseas, with the agreement of the government concerned, to address particular pressure points. It also allows us to take advantage of any future developments in technology such as biometrics, electronic storage of a person's physical characteristics—for example, hand geometry and eye scanning—encrypted into a card, that will enable the holder to pass through electronic controls. We believe that these measures will be to the benefit of the travelling public, the carriers and the Immigration Service alike.

The key to providing these flexibilities will be the provision of advance passenger information. Section 18 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 inserts a new paragraph 27B into Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act. This extends the existing power so as to enable an immigration officer to require a carrier to provide certain information held relating to passengers expected to be carried on ships or aircraft of the carrier both arriving in and departing from the UK. The Immigration (Passenger Information) Order 2000, which was laid before Parliament on 6 April, specifies the type of information which can be required.

I have spoken at length about the benefits to the immigration control and to the genuine passenger, but there are others who will benefit from these provisions. We have consulted widely within the travel industry, and carriers have welcomed those aspects of flexibility that they see as having the potential to allow them to deliver a much better service to their passengers. The British Tourist Association has commented that it "could not be more delighted" at the introduction of a more flexible arrivals control system.

Part IV of the order makes provision for leave to enter or remain not to lapse upon departure from the common travel area. This will apply to persons given leave to enter for more than six months, or holders of entry clearance other than a "visit" visa. This will be particularly welcomed by business people who hold work permits and by long-term students. However, the role of the immigration officer is not diminished, and he or she may still examine a person with continuing leave. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, from these Benches we give a qualified welcome to the order. We particularly like the simplification that the noble Lord described. For example, the extending of leave to enter for the whole of a period during which a student will remain in the United Kingdom will obviously save a great deal of work by the Immigration Service, as will the provisions regarding whole busloads of people entering under bona fide arrangements which have been cleared in advance.

However, there are a few points on which I should like clarification. I gave the Minister notice of one that is important: it is clearly a useful simplification of our immigration procedures if the officer at the port of entry does not second-guess the entry clearance officer in the country of origin, as in an example given by the Minister in another place of a student who was asked precisely the same questions when she arrived at the airport as had been put to her by the ECO in the country of origin. The question is whether the ECO, who will now effectively have responsibility for granting leave to enter, may see it as necessary to satisfy himself or herself by more rigorous inquiries than he or she undertakes at present that the applicant has, for instance, adequate means of support while in the United Kingdom.

The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has assured the organisations that act on behalf of immigrants that the procedures in the country of origin will be identical to those that operate now, and that therefore it is not expected either that they will take any longer than they do now or that they will cause any additional burden of work for the entry clearance officers. As a corollary, it says that there is no expected need for any increase in the visa fees. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us assurances on those matters.

There is a subsidiary point; I did not give the noble Lord notice of it, and I apologise for that. I believe that at present entry certificates are valid for six months from the date of issue. It is important that that flexibility should be retained, because sometimes when people are coming here to join the rest of their family for settlement, for example, they need to make provision for the disposal of property in the country of origin, and therefore need time to carry out their obligations before leaving. It is useful for them to have the period of six months in which that can be done.

Another question relates to the Minister's statement that the order provides that, if the entry certificate contains the conditions under which the holder is allowed to enter the United Kingdom, it will have effect as leave to enter. Under what conditions might an entry certificate be issued without the endorsement of the conditions? That obviously is envisaged in the order, because the EC is to be considered leave to enter if it is endorsed with those conditions, so there must he some circumstances in which it may not be so endorsed.

I also ask the Minister to say a little more about the systems to be put in place to monitor and evaluate the quality and integrity of the new arrangements. Will it be a post-hoc process? In other words, will there be an examination of what happens to persons granted leave to enter at the expiry of their stay in the United Kingdom? If so, will there be computer systems in place that are adequate for that purpose?

At present, as I understand it, there is no check on departure. Therefore, the immigration authorities do not know in a particular case, unless the passenger comes to light in some other manner, whether he or she has physically left the United Kingdom at the end of the permitted leave to stay. Basically, my question is whether the systems that the Minister mentioned for testing the quality and integrity of the new arrangements will require computer systems to be in place to record the departure of persons given limited leave to enter.

The Minister said that the immigration officer at the port of entry would still be able to verify whether the passport and entry clearance were genuine, whether they were presented by the rightful holder and whether the purpose for which the EC had been issued remained the same. Is that an exhaustive list? Are those the three things the immigration officer would be entitled to spend time looking into when someone presents himself or herself at the port of entry, or are there any other matters that the Minister would like to tell us about so that people can be aware of them?

Finally, the Minister said that the immigration officer would not lose any of his powers of examination on arrival, and that in fact those powers would be extended to cancelling leave to enter and entry clearance. That seems not quite to stack up with the idea that the immigration officer does not second-guess the decision that the ECO has already made to grant leave to enter. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us under what circumstances the immigration officer would cancel leave to enter or entry clearance. I presume that it would be done in a situation mentioned earlier, regarding, for example, a question of the person's identity—whether he is the rightful holder of the entry certificate. If the immigration officer finds that someone who is not the rightful holder has presented himself the entry clearance would obviously be automatically cancelled. But are there any other circumstances in which the immigration officer would use that power?

7.45 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, having read the order and the explanatory note, and having listened carefully to the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I have the impression that the Government are attempting, marginally, to improve our methods of immigration control. I hope that when the noble Lord replies to the debate he can confirm that that is the intention and that that is the intended result.

I had responsibility for helping to pilot the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Quite frankly, it did not succeed in reducing immigration to the extent that socially this country was demanding. In fact, in the past 40 years immigration alone has increased the population by approximately 2 million. That is not merely by Commonwealth immigrants; it is by immigration of all kinds, and there is no question of colour distinction, as many of the people who have settled here are not coloured people.

However, we all know that we have done more than our fair share in accepting asylum seekers, who have been pouring in by tens of thousands in recent years. We must consider the interests of the people of this country. Along with Germany, England is now one of the most heavily populated countries in Europe. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that this order is intended to improve immigration control and will do so.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, I have a brief question for the Minister. First, like my noble friend Lord Avebury, perhaps I may say that there is qualified support from this side of the House. My problem stems from two different parts of the order. Part II deals with the powers of the entry clearance officer. Part III deals with the manner of dealing with and refusing leave to enter and relates to immigration officers as opposed to entry clearance officers.

The difficulty that I have is that in some of the British posts abroad entry clearance officers and immigration officers are seconded from the Home Office. Am I right on that point? If that is the case, the problem is that an immigration officer, whether or not in the United Kingdom—therefore, it is assumed that he may be operating in a British post abroad—may give or refuse a person leave to enter the United Kingdom, at any time before his departure for, or in the course of his journey to, the United Kingdom". So far, I have no difficulty.

However, I believe that a problem arises in relation to the words, in the course of his journey to the United Kingdom". The immigration officer may expect to ask a person to produce such documents or copy documents as he would be entitled to obtain in an examination under paragraph 2 or 2A of the schedule. If one travels abroad and is asked to produce that type of documentation there is no problem. People can go home and produce those documents. However, if a person is in the process of travelling to the United Kingdom, how can he be expected to provide copies of documents which he will not have with him? Therefore, the logical conclusion is that he will be refused entry to this country.

I believe that proper clarification is required as to whether it is possible to be satisfied that an immigration officer has all the available information on the basis of which a decision is taken. Once that decision is taken, I do not believe that it is right and proper to demand such documents while the person is travelling because he may not be in a position to produce such evidence.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I certainly agree that it is desirable to reduce duplication and multiple interviews, provided that it can be done, as the Minister set out, without weakening the immigration control. However, a number of questions arise from that. The first is in relation to the Minister's reference to the potential use of biometrics. I was interested in that and wonder whether it means that in the near future the Home Office and the immigration authorities plan to introduce biometric controls of some kind. If so, I believe that it would be helpful if we were told about it. I appreciate that, as technology advances, additional facilities will no doubt be provided for establishing identity, in particular.

My second point arises from what the Minister said about a new format for entry clearance certificates. I am not sure whether that new format is to be in the form of a separate piece of paper or whether it is to be in the form of a stamp in a passport. I can see advantages in both courses. The advantage of a stamp in a passport is that the passport itself assists with establishing the identity of the person concerned. In addition, passports in all countries have devices within them to make sure that they are not forged and that they contain photographs, and so on. If, on the other hand, the format is in the form of a piece of paper, it is likely to be easier to forge. It may not have a photograph etcetera and may be more difficult to forge.

One point about the new system is that the interview and detailed consideration of the case will take place in the country of origin some time before a person's arrival. On arrival, the immigration officer will have to establish that the entry clearance certificate, in whatever format it is, applies to that individual and has not been forged ab initio or altogether. Therefore, it seems to me that it is important to know what format the entry clearance certificate will take.

I believe that it is also important that, whatever the format, the entry clearance document should set out the conditions of entry. I can understand that it will not be possible to check some of the conditions in the country of origin where the certificate is given and that they will have to be checked on arrival. Examples of such conditions are "must have a return ticket" or "must have a means of support". Those conditions might be impossible to check in the country of origin.

The last point that I wish to raise is whether the procedures for the issue of the entry clearance certificate and appeals against refusals essentially will be the same, particularly with regard to appeals, as the appeals are at present against refusal by an immigration officer. The appeal machinery is obviously important, but at present I am not clear as to how it will work. That may be my fault, but I am not entirely clear how the appeal procedure will work when the entry clearance officer in the country of origin is giving or refusing—presumably, quite frequently it will be refusing—permission to enter. I believe that it would be helpful if the Minister could expand on that a little.

With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about whether the immigration officer would need to satisfy himself only on the three matters set out, it seems important that, at least in some cases where his suspicion has been aroused, his powers should remain as they are now. I understand that they will do so. Of course, in the vast majority of cases one does not anticipate that it will be necessary to use further powers if the entry clearance certificate is in order. If the officer is satisfied that it applies to the right person and that the conditions have been fulfilled, there will be no problem. However, if a case has aroused his suspicion, I believe that it is important that he retains powers to look further than only those matters.

In general, I believe that it is desirable to reduce duplication, as this order obviously intends to do, provided that it does not weaken the immigration control which we expect.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the time to go into some detail on the background of the various articles. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate the need for that, given the lengthy nature of the order. I must say that I had hoped that the very detailed explanation that I had given would not only be useful but would answer most of the points that subsequently have been raised. I am conscious that there are some issues of detail and I shall now turn to those, and I am grateful to the House for its courtesy in this matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, kindly gave me notice of one of his questions before we came into the Chamber this evening and I am grateful to him for that. That question related to work levels for entry clearance officers, the complexity of the work and whether there might, as a necessity, therefore be an increase in the visa fee. That is a perfectly reasonable question.

As we see it, the basic consideration process for entry clearances will remain unchanged. My understanding is that entry clearance fees are always kept under regular review. I am sure that that would be accepted by all Members of your Lordships' House. As a part of that review, officials are looking at the implications for entry clearance fees in relation to the new arrangements. In particular, they are examining the effect on fees of the standard visit visa being valid in future for multiple entries.

One of the public service agreement targets for entry clearance work, however, is that there should be no increase in the real level of the visa fee over the June 1997 baseline. So any increase will be proportionate and likely to be in line with inflation. But it will not be as a consequence of any additional burdens of work. I hope that that clarifies that point.

The noble Lord asked also whether all visas can be effective from a later date. We take it that they will be effective from a later date so that the person applying for the visa can state that he wishes to navel only within a particular few weeks.

The noble Lord asked also whether there will be checks on someone's departure. There are no changes to the arrangements by which the Immigration Service deals with overstayers. That probably answers that particular point.

The noble Lord asked what the immigration officer may check on arrival. As I understand it, the immigration officer will be able to check the validity of the passport and entry clearance and that the person presenting it is the rightful holder. Plainly, that is sensible. Normally, visas, as leave to enter, will be stamped on first arrival only.

If the immigration officer is satisfied that the entry clearance, as leave, may have been obtained by false information or failure to disclose material facts or that there has been a change of circumstances which removes the basis of the entry clearance or leave, he is able to suspend the leave to enter and conduct a full examination which may ultimately result in cancellation of leave to enter. Leave may also be cancelled in some circumstances on medical or public good grounds. I believe that that probably answers the penultimate question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked also when visas do not grant entry. Direct air-side transit visas are not an entitlement to seek entry to the UK.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his comments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his general welcome and appreciation of the simplification which the new procedures will bring about.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about Part II powers of entry clearance officers. He asked how people could be expected to produce documents on arrival in the same way as is done for entry clearance officers. He made the point that he did not consider it right to ask for documents on arrival.

In our view, producing those documents is part of the requirements for entry. That must be right. Failure to produce documents will not in itself lead to refusal, but it may do so in certain circumstances.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, I have some difficulty in relation to this matter. A person may travel, for example, from the Indian sub-continent, breaking his journey in Paris and then catching an Air France plane. He has a perfectly valid entry clearance granted on the basis of all the evidence that he has produced. When he comes to Paris, the immigration officer there will ask for certain documents. Under this provision, he must produce copies of such documents as an immigration officer would be entitled to obtain during the time of the entry clearance. He may not carry those documents. How can he produce them? That may affect his entry into the United Kingdom. That is the point I am trying to make. It is impossible for travellers to carry every document, not knowing what an immigration officer is going to ask for.

Therefore, there is an anomaly which should be looked at. I am not asking for an answer now, but that could cause a lot of problems.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his further elucidation of his point. It is likely that advice and guidance will be offered when the original documentation is sought. I take the point that travellers may not always have the documentation with them. Clearly, there must be a reasonable process.

I am happy to write to the noble Lord spelling out more plainly how we see that process working. However, there must be a reasonable expectation that it is possible to produce documents, but there may well be some circumstances in which that is not the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked whether we are trying to tighten up on immigration control. I should prefer to describe this as a modernisation and improvement of process. We already have very firm immigration controls in the United Kingdom. As I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, the main thrust of the legislation was to tighten up, improve and make more rigorous and firmer the processes of the law in relation to asylum seekers while at the same time tidying up our immigration arrangements to ensure that they are effective. I believe that the legislation fairly achieves that. He may interpret it differently.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a very fair question about our plans to introduce biometrics. We are trying to allow for a situation in which we are able to take full advantage of advances in technology. We are aware that systems have been developed in some countries for automated immigration clearance using biometric technology; that is, the electronic storage of a person's physical characteristics which can be encrypted into a card which will enable the holder to pass through an electronically-operated control system.

The Immigration Service has not yet received any formal proposals from carriers or port operators. But as I explained earlier, the order will allow us to work with business partners in taking forward initiatives in that area. I should have thought that there would be a general welcome for that as a progressive move towards making the lives of travellers, operators, carriers and so forth that much easier.

The noble Lord asked a number of other questions about the format for entry clearance documents. He asked whether they would be in the form of paper or other means. Conditions will be in the form of a printed vignette placed in a passport, so they will be in printed form.

The noble Lord asked also whether processes for appeal in relation to issue of entry clearance and refusal will be the same as now. The answer to that is that they will be. An entry clearance has effect only as leave on arrival in the UK. So appeals will be against refusal of entry clearance and not against leave.

The noble Lord finally asked me about immigration officers' examination, which I believe I answered in my earlier responses.

I am grateful to the House for the courtesy that it has extended to me this evening in bringing forward this order. I trust that I have answered most of the detailed questions and points that have been raised. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.