My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for explaining her Amendment 151B. We should recognise that the Immigration Rules and decisions about visa requirements are sovereign national powers which rest with the Home Secretary. I sympathise with my noble friend’s desire to retain national control over visa policy. We took back control of our borders when we left the European Union. We now have the freedom to set our own rules in the interests of the UK.
Trade and immigration are separate policy areas. The UK does not routinely discuss immigration in trade negotiations. Comprehensive free trade agreements typically include provisions on so-called mode 4 trade in services. These set the terms for the temporary movement of service providers between parties to the agreement. Immigration policy, as opposed to mode 4, is our overarching approach to long-term immigration and border controls.
My noble friend has expressed concerns about the Government’s free trade negotiations with India. As is standard in such agreements, I expect we shall explore more mode 4 provisions. These could support British and Indian businesses and consumers in our negotiations with India. It is not a one-way conversation. UK business stakeholders have identified mobility issues affecting UK service suppliers seeking to go to India. We may seek to address these in our negotiations, just as we have done in our free trade agreements with other partners, such as Japan, Australia and the EU.
We would expect to do the same in any future comprehensive free trade agreements. Any agreement will be consistent with the points-based immigration system. We will not compromise the principles or functioning of this system.
3.15 am
I note also that Parliament already has appropriate involvement in the scrutiny of free trade agreements and their provisions through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—process. The legislative framework set by CRaG provides Parliament with the opportunity to undertake scrutiny of a free trade agreement prior to its ratification. Visa and immigration issues are and will remain a sovereign national matter and we will not compromise the principles of the points-based immigration system in any agreement we negotiate. In addition, the CRaG process already provides an appropriate mechanism for the scrutiny of free trade agreements. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Clause 69. A key function of the Home Office is the removal of individuals with no legal right to be here, either by deportation or administrative removal, usually to their country of nationality. We expect our international partners to work with us to remove such individuals, as the UK does where our own nationals are in another country without the right to be there. This is a critical component of a functioning migration relationship. The vast majority of countries co-operate with us on this matter. However, a small number of countries do not.
It is not right for UK citizens and taxpayers that pressure is put on our public services by foreign nationals with no legal right to be here and who we cannot remove because of poor co-operation from their country. We have to fix this. Clause 69 is designed to give the Government the power to impose visa penalties on the nationals of unco-operative countries. Countries should no longer expect to benefit from a normal UK visa service if they are unwilling to co-operate with us on the matter of returning their nationals who have no right to be here.
These powers are a key part of our New Plan for Immigration and a vital step towards removing more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. We will be able to slow down or suspend visa services for that country, and to require applicants to pay a surcharge of £190 when they apply for a UK visa. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why it was £190. The level of the surcharge has been set with reference to comparative powers elsewhere—for example, in the European Union—and the current cost of coming to the UK as a visitor. We will maintain discretion to vary the level of the surcharge through regulations should the factors that were considered when setting it no longer be relevant.
I was also asked why nationals of countries could or should be penalised for the actions of their Government. It is reasonable for the Government to apply pressure where there has been a track record of a lack of co-operation from any country. It is not fair for our citizens and taxpayers for foreign nationals with no right to be the UK to put pressure on our public services. It is a proportionate and reasonable response to maximise the levers available to us to
improve returns co-operation with our international partners. I stress that there is international precedent and principle for this in bilateral migration relationships. Both the United States and the European Union have powers to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. So I am afraid I do not really follow the imperial logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the likely impact of visa penalties on nationals of unco-operative countries, particularly the effect on vulnerable individuals. We will ensure that the most vulnerable individuals—those with compelling and compassionate grounds for travelling to the UK, including the ones described by the noble Lord—are exempted from the application of visa penalties through a provision in the Immigration Rules using the power under Clause 69(9)(b). Furthermore, Clause 70 requires the Home Secretary to revoke visa penalties as soon as reasonably practicable if a country is no longer unco-operative.
Specifically, Clause 69 sets out when a country may be specified as unco-operative and the factors that will be taken into account when imposing visa penalties. Additionally, this provides detail on the types of penalties that may be applied. Clause 69(6) allows the Secretary of State to vary the level of the surcharge through regulations should the factors that were considered when setting it no longer be relevant.