Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the series of meetings that she has assiduously held on this Bill in an attempt to give assurances. Some amendments have indeed been brought forward, the most crucial regarding Clause 1. I shall refer briefly to Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I do not propose to speak on it today. We are at Third Reading and I have said all that I wished to say at other stages of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I end at that point. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for bringing forward her Amendment No. 2. She is right to do so because, as she says, this is the time for further clarification and our last chance to get assurances from the Government. The noble Baroness is also right to say that she does not intend to press the matter to a Division. We are all agreed that the points system must be made to work. To do that requires good will from all of us so that we get as much clarification from the Minister as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was careful in her arguments to address herself simply to the administrative review process itself. I will say one or two words about that in a moment—in support of her, I hope. When the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke he rather opened Pandora’s box by taking us into a debate about the points system. I do not see that as a   problem, since at Second Reading we had no opportunity to debate that system. The Minister very constructively assisted the delay of Third Reading so that noble Lords could put questions about the points system today. I had rather thought that it might come up in the next group of amendments, so I had stuffed all my questions in there. I have given the Minister notice that rather than double up I will ask those questions now. In a moment when I go through those questions and test the patience of the House, noble Lords will at least know that in the next group I can be extremely brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was very helpful to set out what she considers to be good practice with regard to administrative review. It will be important for the Minister now to go through that to say whether the Government see that the limbs of good practice that she has set out as being the ones that they wish to adopt. For example, she said that the entry clearance officer should provide written reasons for refusal. I hope that she would add ““in the outcome of any subsequent review””, as one needs to know how the process would continue. She also said that the review should allow for the clarification of the existing evidence. I hope that one would be able to submit further evidence and, if not, on what basis that would be denied. Overall, the noble Baroness has provided the good practice guide that the Government ought to follow. On the issue of the Pandora’s box and the points system, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, explained that last week the Government published a points-based system Making Migration Work for Britain. In another place, there was a Private Notice Question on that. I felt that it was not appropriate for me to clamour for that to be taken by way of a Statement in this House, because the Government had shown goodwill by delaying Third Reading so that we could debate it today. Therefore, I did not press for a Statement in this House, but it was so that noble Lords should be able to talk about the points system today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am grateful to Christine Lee of the North London Chinese Association for the very helpful briefing that she sent to Peers for this stage of the Bill. She makes some very pertinent points, which I would like to raise, and asks some questions that I would like the Minister to respond to. I have given advance notice of those, because they are in detail. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the fact that Ms Lee and her colleagues had a meeting today with the Minister, Mr McNulty. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give an update on that. I have been provided with a summary synopsis of the meeting by Ms Lee, but I am not sure whether the Minister has seen that yet. It may be that we are going to have to conclude any discussions about that by way of letter following this debate; or indeed it may be appropriate for the Minister to answer questions on that when this Bill is debated in another place this Thursday and it takes Lords amendments. On tier 3 of the points system, the Chinese community points out that it is important to know what will happen to low-skill workers. Will low-skill workers including waiters, waitresses, kitchen porters and catering assistants fall within tier 3 of the points system? The Minister will know that the Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Chinese and Indian communities place a heavy reliance on those workers, particularly in small businesses. They point out the problem areas that arise if they have to recruit from communities that do not reflect their ethnicity, such as communication, team cohesion, training needs and deployment. On tier 2 of the points system, will the Minister confirm what requirements will be needed for restaurant managers and chefs to fall within tier 2? Would that include those chefs and managers with at least three years’ experience? The Minister will recall that Mr McNulty said categorically that chefs would fall within tier 2, but the section describing the architecture of the new system is not clear about that. It seems to set a points menu that could deny the opportunity for chefs and most managers to come here. That is at pages 25 and 26 of the Government’s document. Would it be right to say that in practice a chef would either have to satisfy a requirement that the job offer had been made in a shortage occupation, or that the job offer passes the test that the applicant would not displace a worker in the domestic UK market, plus the additional test that he or she would be earning a minimum of £21,000 a year in the UK from a registered employer? I realise that some points can be earned by having a Masters degree or a PhD but, without intending to underestimate the ability of chefs, that does not seem particularly relevant to the employment of most chefs in this country. Last week, the Minister offered me the opportunity to meet her. I raised questions about this then, with regard particularly to the test of £21,000 a year as the qualifying salary. Will that £21,000 be expressed merely in monetary terms, or do the Government intend to take into account benefits in kind when calculating that qualifying salary? I realise that we have asked a lot of questions today on an opening group of amendments, but I anticipate that if the Minister is able to satisfy us some of the remaining groups may pass a little more quickly.