House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Feb 1999 (pt 22)

Mr. Malins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: As I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I will.

Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not in the House from 1992 to 1997. If he wants to criticise my work in the ethnic community in the years that I was out of the House, he is free to do so and to make as many cheap points as he wants.

Mr. Vaz: I am not making cheap points. I am mentioning the fact that there is no point in an hon. Member getting up in the Chamber and acting as if he has collective amnesia. The fact is that the previous Government introduced most of those restrictive measures. I take that as an apology. The hon. Gentleman was not here, so he was not responsible for the removal of the right of appeal.

Mr. Corbyn: Can I help?

Mr. Vaz: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Corbyn: Just so the historical record is accurate, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) did lose his seat in the 1992 election, but he was here in 1991 when the original legislation was introduced, which fell because of the 1992 general election, so my hon. Friend may be spot on in ascribing guilt to him.

Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that we have someone with such knowledge, who knows about such things and stores them up in his memory. I thank him for his help.

22 Feb 1999 : Column 79

The bond system is one with which the hon. Member for Woking should be familiar because he is a stipendiary magistrate. Surely the bail system acts against the very poor. Let us have a system that can at least be administered. Many of my constituents have come to my surgery and said, "If only the Department would accept bonds. It will not let my relative in, but the application is genuine. It will not accept my undertaking. It will not accept my Member of Parliament's undertaking. What is the point of having a Member of Parliament? What is the point of going to Ministers? I will put up £1,000 or whatever. I will get that money back when my relative goes back." Therefore, the bond system will be welcomed.

I know that the scheme is only at the pilot stage and that no decision has been taken on where pilot schemes are to operate. I put in an early bid for the people of Leicester. If it is going to operate from abroad, I put in an early bid for Bombay because it is important that we have a post that is very busy. Let us try out the system and find out whether it works. I think that, in 100 per cent. of cases, it will be successful because people will not want to lose their money. Many people ask us about the matter.

I am against increasing fees in immigration and asylum work. However, if people pay they will at least have a system that works. If fees are introduced, I will want an efficient and effective system and something to be done about the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate operates.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Vaz: I shall not because time is short.

My constituents would gladly pay a modest fee if they knew that the current system at IND were efficient. What we have is a shambles. I am glad to know that the shambles began--I am sorry to know, but it is a matter of fact--under the previous Government. I want to know more about the contract that the previous Government entered into over the computer system, which clearly does not work.

I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for what is happening at IND, but the fact is that there are massive delays. It is a sad reflection that the only time people take notice of the issue is when City bond dealers complain. Page six of The Times today states:

"A City bond dealer who contacted The Times was told that it would take four to six months to renew his Croatian wife's visa. In 60 telephone calls, he could reach only an answerphone."

The dealer stated:

"It is a total shambles. If you go down there at 7.15 am there are sometimes up to 200 people waiting outside the building and then when they get in there are hardly any facilities."

It is an appalling system.

I know that the Minister has written to hon. Members to say, "Please don't write to us, because the files have been removed." Moreover, the article in The Times--perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is true--states that boxes of files are in buildings, in one case in an underground garage, that staff cannot enter because of health hazards.

22 Feb 1999 : Column 80

I have raised a number of cases with senior IND members--some of whom are in the House for today's debate; it is a pity that they are not available when we ring them up--but have received no response. The only star on the dark horizon is a woman named Jackie Morar. When I contact her, things get done. However, hon. Members should not have to shout, scream and ring up to complain. Jackie Morar is the head of IND's public inquiry unit. [Hon. Members: "What's her number?"] I do not have her direct number, but I am sure that the Minister will give it to hon. Members who ring him for it.

Hon. Members realise that the system is under pressure. However, the point is that people have to get back their passports and have their applications dealt with--which is not happening. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary visited IND. I hope that the Minister will visit IND and do something about its operation.

There is an enormous difference between dealing with the Minister's private office and with IND officials, who are supposed to deal with hon. Members. Therefore, let us have also a dedicated unit at IND in Liverpool to deal with hon. Members. Currently, there is no such unit, and hon. Members who try to find out what is happening with naturalisations are not receiving an answer. Let us consider making those administrative changes. The Minister has our support in what he is seeking to do to streamline and modernise the system, but he must ensure that the administration that seeks to run the system works.

I welcome the fact that there will be a Special Standing Committee, which is the best way to take evidence and hear from those who will be affected by the legislation. I ask only that the Special Standing Committee visits Britain's major cities to hear from the communities themselves about the way in which immigration control affects them. I hope that such a process will turn a good Bill into an excellent Bill, as hon. Members will be provided with the type of information that we--although we have our own experience--clearly lack.

7.2 pm

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): The constituency of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) borders my constituency for a few hundred yards. However, our constituencies could not be more different in terms of the populations whom we represent. He has a huge number of constituents of Asian and other non-white origin, whereas my constituency has an almost entirely white population. Therefore, my constituency experience must be rather different from his. None the less, we both--I hope--approach the Bill with a sense of mutual good will. I only regret that he felt it sensible to make personal remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who can claim above most other Opposition Members to have studied the asylum and immigration issue with a clear conscience and a well-motivated heart. I was disappointed about only that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

In the short time available to me, I shall not concentrate on the parts of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke, but make a few points primarily about part II. First, however, I should say that I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an enormous Bill, which contains 50 order-making powers. Although I agree that previous Conservative Governments have passed similar legislation, I regret the way in which the current

22 Feb 1999 : Column 81

Government are introducing legislation containing regulation-making provisions that allow a Secretary of State in the House, or the Lord Chancellor in the other place, to make subsidiary legislation. I should like more legislation, and more detailed legislation, to be dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than by using order-making powers.

I should like to make a brief point on part I, and then to make other points on part II. I draw the Minister's attention directly to clause 7, which deals with the provision of financial security. Like most hon. Members, I agree that allowing people to put up bonds is a sensible provision. I simply wonder what on earth clause 7(2) is supposed to mean. Clause 7(1) states:

"In such circumstances as may be specified, the Secretary of State may require security to be given, with respect to a person applying for entry clearance, before clearance is given."

That is clear enough. However, clause 7(2) states:

"In such circumstances as may be specified--

(a) the Secretary of State may accept security with respect to a person who is applying for entry clearance but for whom security is not required".

What does that mean? Does it mean that someone may volunteer to give security?

Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated assent.

Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Minister has been able to clarify that point.

Part II deals with carriers' liability. In it, we enter into a part of the Bill that would impose huge burdens on the carrying industry--whether airlines, road hauliers or owners of ferry companies. Part II carries a superficial attraction. Nevertheless, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that, although many of the provisions in part II are worthy ones, Opposition Members hope that the Minister and his colleagues are sincere when they say that they will consult more widely on how the provisions are brought into effect, as they could have damaging effects on the businesses that are likely to be caught by them.