|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
'(1) For section 84(2) and (3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (person qualified to provide immigration services) substitute
"(2) A person is a qualified person if he is
(a) a registered person,
1 Mar 2004 : Column 717
'In section 3(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) (functions of Director of Public Prosecutions) after paragraph (eb) insert
"(ec) to give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, advice to immigration officers on matters relating to criminal offences;".'.[Mr. Heppell.]
'Where a document comes into the possession of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer in the course of the exercise of an immigration function, the Secretary of State or an immigration officer may retain the document while he suspects that
(a) a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and
(b) retention of the document may facilitate the removal.'.[Mr. Heppell.]
'In section 82(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) after paragraph (i) insert
"(ia) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) (seamen and aircrews),".'.[Mr. Heppell.]
'After paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry: persons arriving with leave to enter) insert
"(2A) Where the person's leave to enter derives, by virtue of section 3A(3), from an entry clearance, he may also be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of establishing whether the leave should be cancelled on the grounds that the person's purpose in arriving in the United Kingdom is different from the purpose specified in the entry clearance."'.[Mr. Heppell.]
'For section 92(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (appeal from within United Kingdom: person with entry clearance or work permit) substitute
"(3) This section also applies to an appeal against refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom if
(a) at the time of the refusal the appellant is in the United Kingdom, and
(b) on his arrival in the United Kingdom the appellant had entry clearance.
(3A) But this section does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) if subsection (3B) or (3C) applies to the refusal of leave to enter.
(3B) This subsection applies to a refusal of leave to enter which is a deemed refusal under paragraph 2A(9) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 resulting from cancellation of leave to enter by an immigration officer
(a) under paragraph 2A(8) of that Schedule, and
(b) on the grounds specified in paragraph 2A(2A) of that Schedule.
(3C) This subsection applies to a refusal of leave to enter which specifies that the grounds for refusal are that the leave is sought for a purpose other than that specified in the entry clearance.
(3D) This section also applies to an appeal against refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom if at the time of the refusal the appellant
(a) is in the United Kingdom,
(b) has a work permit, and
(c) is any of the following (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61))
(i) a British overseas territories citizen,
(ii) a British Overseas citizen,
(iii) a British National (Overseas),
(iv) a British protected person, or
(v) a British subject."'.[Mr. Heppell.]
I thank my ministerial colleagues from the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Whips, all members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who participated today. The Bill has been properly and adequately considered. Once we got over using silly words, such as "despicable", about clause 7, we had a sensible debate.
I am pleased that we have amended the Bill to include trafficking offences to deal with forced labour, and tackled important subjects such as child slavery. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who does not always agree with me, for his work in Committee in drawing attention to that. I am glad that we could make important changes.
Clause 11 has caused controversy and will cause it in another place. It is a classic example, which shows that had people been more modest in their operation of the law and their approach to their job, they would not have cooked the goose that laid the golden egg. I am talking about lawyers who simply abused the judicial review system by dragging out cases for months and, in some instances, years. That is what happens when those who preach liberalism lead us down the wrong path so that those who try to protect human rights and individual interests find that the system has been so abused that we have to remove the golden thread. The legal aid budget has doubled to £174 million. That is public money that has not gone towards asylum seekers or people in the community but into lawyers' pockets. That is a disgrace that is coming to an end.