Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill |
|
Andy Burnham: Let me briefly explain a little more about how the provisions will work. That might give the hon. Gentleman some of the assurances that he seeks. In particular, let me pick up the very valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband). He attended the debate in the House—I was pleased to see him there—when we had a good exchange on these issues. The clause relates to the award of a loan, and to ensuring that people have access to the support that they need to establish their lives here. I ask all members of the Committee to consider that the very fact that we are making the loan available to people granted five years’ leave suggests that we are keen to help them to create a new life here. The purpose of the loan is to enable them to put down roots, to find their feet in their new communities; it is about good integration. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. The policy would allow a five-year review of cases, in order to assess whether conditions in country had changed significantly—my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North was right to mention the word “fundamental”. I assure all hon. Members that an in-depth review would not be conducted for every case. In the vast majority of cases, the review would go no further than confirming that there had been no such change and that the full protection of this country should apply in the form of indefinite leave. 6.30 pmI want to assure hon. Members that in the vast majority of cases an in-depth review would not be relevant. It is possible to speculate on what countries could have been captured within the terms of this provision, but I stress at this point that it is just speculation to discuss whether in the last five years there could have been a permanent and fundamental improvement in the in-country conditions in some of the countries from which people have sought asylum. Perhaps we are talking about some of the countries in the Balkans; I am not sure. We may be talking about Nigeria, but again I am not sure. Some people who sought asylum from the Abacha regime could now possibly return to a part of their country where they
The purpose of the change that we announced in the five-year strategy was simply to align our system with the refugee convention and to ensure that we would honour our commitments to give people full protection for as long as they needed it, but without creating a pull factor for immigration into this country. However—this is the purpose of the clause—it is fully our intention that, where such protection is granted, we should help people to integrate well and in such a way that they can add to the community to which they have become attached. That would not involve just a refugee integration loan; it could involve help from a caseworker under the SUNRISE—Strategic Upgrade of National Refugee Integration Services—scheme or a range of other support that Government Members remain committed to keeping in place. That is why the clause is important. Given the comments that I have made, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 Inspection of detention facilities Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mrs. Gillan: I have four quick points. The clause is designed to regularise the position regarding inspections of establishments currently carried out by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. As I understand it, what is happening in practice is being enshrined in statute. First, with regard to proposed new subsection (5B)(a), could the Minister provide us with a list of all centres, facilities and arrangements that currently exist in the United Kingdom and that come under these short-term holding facilities or other facilities or arrangements? Secondly, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons is constantly under-resourced in this area. As the Minister is putting matters on a statutory footing, will he consider what additional resources may be needed by HMCIP? Thirdly, will the National Offender Management Service proposals—for which we are awaiting the draft legislation yet again, because the Government cannot get their act together—affect any of these provisions? Lastly, if we are putting the chief inspector of prisons on a statutory footing, what is the position regarding the prisons ombudsman? Mr. McNulty: As the hon. Lady suggests, clause 39 simply puts on a statutory footing that which already prevails. On the detailed questions that she asks, I am happy to write to her, but most of our ports have non-residential holding rooms, as do our immigration
Question put and agreed to. Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40 Removal: cancellation of leave Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Dr. Harris: I do not want to have a long debate on this matter, but I want to return to the question that this clause again raises of how people who will effectively be made destitute will be looked after. When that issue was raised during the debate on clause 37, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, who represents Harrow— Mr. McNulty: Not all of Harrow. Dr. Harris: West? Mr. McNulty: East. Dr. Harris: Harrow, East. The Minister was unwilling to engage or even to answer the basic question in relation to clause 37 about whether he expected local authorities to provide full board or vouchers. The reason why it is important to debate in Committee how people will be looked after who are made destitute by the removal of their leave under the provisions of clauses 1 and 9 together with clause 40, is that this matter was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and, in response to her question the Home Secretary said:
Although I understand that the Committee is under some pressure of time, it would be helpful if the Minister would address the question, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, of how people will pay for things that are necessary for a decent and civilised existence—not just food, which can be bought with food vouchers, but essential transport costs, modest communication costs and other things such as sanitary provision. That is not an unreasonable question, and this clause, taken together with clauses 1 and 9, leaves it open and unanswered. I accept that the Minister said that he would look at the way clause 9 would work, and I am not ungrateful for that. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to address the point relating to what happens under section 4 with the operation of clause 37, because clause 40 will leave people reliant on section 4—hard case funding. Column Number: 245 Mr. McNulty: The only issue of substance in that regard is the difference and gap between the cancellation of leave and removal. I made it clear during the debate on clause 1 on appeals that we would examine that gap and not leave people in limbo. I am happy to give that assurance again in terms of any cancellation of leave. I will also say that the hon. Gentleman should get his language right. These people are not “made destitute”; they make themselves destitute by not taking steps to remove themselves because they have rendered themselves illegal in terms of their presence in the UK by exhausting all other avenues. Language, as I have said on several occasions in this Committee, is important. The state is not making those individuals destitute; it is they themselves who do so, on their terms, by their choices, because they seek to continue in an illegal position in the UK. That must be an integral part of a progressive asylum process. Question put and agreed to. Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill Clause 42 Procedure Dr. Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in clause 42, page 23, line 22, leave out from ‘paid’ to end of line 24. The general point that the amendment addresses is whether the requirement for making applications and changes to the procedure should be just administrative or whether those changes should be made in the immigration rules or confined to regulations. Clause 42 is extremely broad, particularly in its reference to
The amendment is probing, and seeks clarification of subsection (2), and what scrutiny will be given to procedures under it, as opposed to the rules under subsection (1). Subsection (2) is troubling. The Secretary of State makes laws on immigration applications and makes the immigration rules. New situations arise that require the development of practices and policies not yet embodied in the rules. In the past, some concessions have been slow to find their way into the rules; one example is the changes and the concession that was made on domestic violence. The concession or policy might be set out in a letter, described at a meeting or noted in policy instructions. Although the latter are available on the Home Office website, it is difficult for members of the public to negotiate it and to seek out that information, especially if they are not legally qualified. It is therefore not easy in those circumstances for individuals to know what the law is, nor to conform their conduct to it. While it may be embodied in a concession that the Secretary of State requires certain information, it would not be reasonable to give him powers to create a mandatory procedure with serious penalties if it were not followed. If a concession
I am also keen to probe the power in both subsections that makes provision for the consequences of failure to comply. Could an inadvertent failure to comply with a technical requirement by a specified time, result in refusal of an application? The forms are complex, English is often not the first language of the people concerned and access to legal advice is not always what it could be. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those points on this probing amendment. Mrs. Gillan: Because the amendment covers not only the area we are discussing but that of fees— Mr. McNulty: It does not cover fees. Mrs. Gillan: The Minister says that it does not cover fees. Clause 42 mentioned fees. Mr. McNulty: To be fair to the hon. Lady, the proposal is about specified forms and procedures for applications or claims. Fees are more readily considered in substance in clause 43. Clause 42 is in essence about not coming back to the House with a statutory instrument every time that IND wants to change something on a form. I take the hon. Gentleman’s points about the amendment, which I am happy to consider to see whether it can more readily be put into rules rather than being in statute. There must be some sanction against non-compliance; reality must be impose4 in terms of inadvertent compliance but I am happy to consider whether it should be in the Bill or in regulation In substance, that means that we move away from the present ludicrous position in which every time there is a change to any substantive form available in this area it has to be made under statutory instruments. There is parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary scrutiny, which is probably not terribly helpful, partly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested, and for a range of other reasons. I am happy to look at amendment No. 129, but I urge hon. Members to accept clause 42. Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider the proposal. I always look at the statutory instrument list when the title is understandable and is a subject that is in my area, and when I have responsibility for immigration matters I ensure that proposed changes in immigration rules are looked at and if necessary prayed against. That is our right; perhaps it is not used as often as it might be but that is not to say that it is not a right that we would seek to preserve, as opposed to having less scrutiny. In the light of what the Minister said about looking at the proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, with drawn. Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 247 Clause 43 Fees Dr. Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 43, page 24, line 5, leave out paragraph (c). The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 133, in clause 43, page 24, line 11, at end insert
No. 134, in clause 43, page 24, line 13, at end insert
Dr. Harris: I was looking at the old list, which put the amendments under clause 44, and looking forward to hearing the general comment on that clause. The Chairman: Order. There is a revised amendment list and it is forming the programme of debate in this Committee. 6.45 pmDr. Harris: Clearly, that is correct. As soon as I heard the amendment being called, I saw the new list and it became clear that this is what we do. I have no problem with that. There is a debate to be had about fees, but I am concerned, given people’s wish to make progress, about how far we can go into that without coming back at half-past 8 unnecessarily—or necessarily—for only a short time. Therefore, I will launch straight into an explanation of amendment No. 132. It proposes to leave out subsection (2)(c), which states:
Leaving that provision out would simply preserve the current situation, whereby the Home Office does not officially give advice to individuals and does not charge for that advice—the advice that it does not officially give. Its telephone inquiry bureau and public caller officers may give information about the rules and evidence required but we would all accept that it is wholly inappropriate for them to advise on whether to make an application. On that basis, if it is inappropriate for the Home Office to give advice as a party to an application or appeal, it must be wrong for it to charge for it. Mr. McNulty: There is no intention under this bit of the clause to charge individuals for any advice given in terms of their individual cases or mandatory requirements. We reserve the right in terms of representatives or agents, but not in relation to individuals. Dr. Harris: I understand the point that the Minister makes and I will reflect on what he said. In an attempt to move things on, I will discuss amendment No. 133. I think that the Minister will short-circuit again and I welcome it. Column Number: 248 Mr. McNulty: The amendment is reflected in Treasury policy, so it is unnecessary. Dr. Harris: There is a question to respond to, although I understand the point that the Minister is making: should the Government make a profit or a net return from those fees? As I understand it, when the Home Office first introduced charging for applications, the then Home Office Minister wrote on 23 September 2003 to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The letter said:
I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that there is nothing in the clause that changes that. Mr. McNulty: Let me do it now. There would need to be an express power in legislation in order to recover more than the full cost of the application. The important thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s comments is entirely right and there would need to be legislative change for that to be otherwise. Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister. We seem to be doing things in a relatively efficient way. The reason why I am seeking to probe on amendment No. 134 is to ensure that people who are granted shorter periods of leave, and therefore need to apply for more frequent extensions, are not penalised in the sense that they have to pay disproportionately for that. The immigration rules, as the Minister will know, state the most common periods of leave for which people will be allowed to stay. For example, a student on a degree course should be given leave for the whole of the course, which is normally three years. A person with a work permit will normally be given five years. If students are given a one-year stay instead of three years, they could end up paying the fee three times over, which would not be the case otherwise. Mr. McNulty: Purely for completeness rather than to prolong the ping-pong, I must say that it costs the same amount to process a failed application form, an application form that in the end gets less than applied for, and one that gets the full amount applied for. If we are recovering full costs, the amendment makes no logical sense. Dr. Harris: Given the answers that I have received, and on the understanding that nobody else wants to discuss this group, I think it is best to say that I will not put the amendment. I do not know whether I must formally seek leave to withdraw the amendment, because I could say that I am not putting it. The Chairman: That is quite in order, because I have not put it from the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman is not putting it, we can dispense with the amendment, with which we were considering two others. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 249 Mrs. Gillan: After my false start in our debate on clause 42, when I thought that
might have covered what I was going to say, I shall make only two quick points. I understand that the fee for making any immigration application in person at the Home Office is currently about £500, and that applications by post are £335. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the scale of the charges. It is worth mentioning that the Legal Services Commission generally allows solicitors to charge for up to three hours’ work for preparing immigration applications and for advising those who are making them. The fee is £172.05 in London and £157.65 outside London. In most cases, checking the application documents after the application has been submitted is actually a lot less complicated than preparing them, and is done by someone who is less qualified than a solicitor, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge. The Minister should examine the scale of the charges and satisfy himself that he is happy with them, for the simple reason that there must be enormous economies of scale within the Home Office. Will he assure us that he will do so, and that he will see whether there is any possibility of ensuring that the charges are regularly monitored so that they remain affordable rather than exorbitant, which they currently seem to be? Lastly, there was tremendous lobbying about waiving fees for people granted exceptional discretionary leave up to their 18th birthday. Fees were also waived for children in the care of local authorities and for spouses who have been victims of domestic violence—an issue in which I am particularly interested. Have the Government considered making a similar provision for no charges to be levied in any other categories? I am thinking particularly of any application made by a child in his or her own right, of an application that is made under the Human Rights Act, the European convention on human rights or any other international convention, or any application made by a person who receives means-tested benefits. Dr. Harris: I am conscious of the time, and I shall shorten my remarks. As the Minister might expect, I want to express alarm about the level of the fees, as the hon. Lady has just done. From April 2005, postal applications have cost £335. That is a huge amount, and the cost is significantly higher, as the hon. Lady said, than we envisaged it would be in 1999. Column Number: 250 On 15 April 1999, the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O’Brien), then a Home Office Minister, said in a Special Standing Committee that the fees
An increase to £335 suggests that the initial estimates were very wrong. Finally, there is the question of racial discrimination and the impact on ethnic minorities. The fees fall heavily on people from ethnic minorities, particularly when they are as high as £500, as we have heard, for an application in person. Will the Minister reassure us on that matter, too? Mr. McNulty: First, may I say to the hon. Lady, “Nice try, but I am not about to negotiate exemptions and waivers across the Committee Floor?” I shall respond to her if she wants to pursue the matter in writing. As far as the other matters are concerned, the fees, which I do not accept are exorbitant, reflect the cost of the process, as we have just discussed. The numbers of applications and everything else across the whole business have increased significantly since the early ’90s, and the fees merely reflect that. Secondly, I urge the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon at the very least to read the Institute for Public Policy Research report, “Beyond Black and White: Mapping New Immigrant Communities”. The notion that the fees fall disproportionately on ethnic minorities is simply not borne out by the work of the immigration and nationality directorate across the piece. In the gentle south-east, the second and third largest communities of foreign-born people are French and South African. This is not simply a black and white issue. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that and not feed the poisonous idea that this issue is all about race. It is not; it is about migration and border controls in this country, and it goes well beyond race. I do not accept his last point at all. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o’clock till Thursday 27 October at Nine o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 26 October 2005 |