Clause
10
Penalty:
objection
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Damian
Green:
The Minister commented that there appears to have
been an outbreak of consensus. I am happy to report that it is now at
an end. We have serious objections to clause 10, which provides for the
Secretary of State to consider appeals against penalties for failing to
comply with the regulations that relate to biometric immigration
documents. We do not believe that it should stand part of the Bill
because we do not think that it is a sensible place in which to give
the Secretary of State such quasi-judicial powers.
I assume that in a peculiar
way, which the Minister did not get round to explaining, the penalties
are decided on a civil rather than a criminal scale. However, even
after his explanation, I am still confused as to why the creation of
what, by any standards, is a criminal offence should be regarded in any
way as a civil matter. I can only assume that the provision in the
clause to allow someone to object to a penalty measure is in some way
based on the view that it is a civil matter between the Home Secretary
and the citizen. That does not seem to reflect the reality of the
situation. The person involved will assume that the authority of the
state is bearing down on him and that if he has committed an offence
that constitutes a crime by any normal standards, it is right and
proper that his appeal against the penalty for having committed that
crime should be considered by the courts. We can argue about the level
of the fine, but the matter will clearly be serious enough for people
to expect some kind of independent hearing in the courts, or a
quasi-judicial procedure, and not simply to be referred back to the
Executive, which would then be acting as judge and jury.
As was the case for one of the
previous groups of amendments, about which the Minister spoke
relatively kindly, we think that it would help if the Government were
to take the clause away and rethink it. One of the things that we have
discussed in the debates on this Bill has been the level of public
confidence. I am sure that public confidence would be improved if there
were provisions for proper judicial hearing and redress, rather than
decisions made by a single Government Department not only on the
introduction and workings
of the Bill but on offences committed, penalties imposed and appeals
against such penalties. The clause oversteps the
mark—it creates the wrong balance between the Executive and
citizen. The Minister would do well not just to think about it again
and to promise to come back later, but to withdraw the clause because
it imposes unnecessary penalties on citizens and an unfair system of
redress in relation to them.
Mr.
Byrne:
The Committee has just agreed that clause 9 should
stand part of the Bill. The effect of that decision is that if the Bill
completes its journey into statute, the Secretary of State will have
the power to issue civil penalty notices to individuals who do not
comply with it. As I said, the reason for proposing a civil penalty
regime rather than a criminal offence is to ensure a degree of
consistency between the Bill and the system of sanctions established in
the Identity Cards Act 2006 and approved by Parliament. We would run
into serious difficulties once the ID cards of foreign nationals had
been designated as ID cards if we had a civil regime for ID cards and a
criminal regime for biometric immigration documents. Given that clause
9 will now stand part of the Bill and that the Committee is suggesting
that the Secretary of State should be equipped with the power to issue
civil penalty notices, it would be problematic if the Committee did not
provide for individuals to be able to object to the Secretary of
State’s handing out civil penalty
notices.
Clause
10’s provisions are quite straightforward. They will ensure that
once the civil penalty regime is up and running, it runs fairly. We
want to ensure that disputes between foreign nationals and the
Secretary of State can be resolved at minimal cost. The clause will not
eliminate any right of appeal. It is designed to act in accordance with
existing schemes provided for under the Identity Cards Act. The point
that I want to underline is that the offence of non-compliance with the
provisions in the Bill will not be a criminal offence but a civil
offence.
We are
suggesting a civil penalty regime because that is how we think
compliance can best be secured. A system of criminal offences would be
slower—justice would be less swift—and less effective.
Having provided for a civil penalty regime, it would be a bit strange
for the Committee, and indeed for the House, to remove protections that
have long been available in this country and abroad to citizens who
disagree with the penalties handed out by the Secretary of State. It is
absolutely essential that individuals should be able to object to
decisions made by the Secretary of State, backed by the right of appeal
if they choose to take the matter to that territory. I commend the
clause to the Committee, as it is an essential protection and a
consequence of clause
9.
Question put,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
5.
Division
No.
7
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 10
ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
13
Penalty:
code of
practice
12.15
pm
Damian
Green:
I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
clause 13, page 8, line 14, at
end add
‘at least six
months before the commencement of the
provisions’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 84, in clause 13, page 8, line 15, at end
add—
‘(7) Sections 9 to 12
shall not come into force until the code has been laid before, and
approved by a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.’.
Damian
Green:
Amendment No. 65 would add to clause 13 the
requirement for the Government to publish the code of practice at least
six months before the commencement of the provisions. The amendment
relates to a recurrent debate about how much consultation is
appropriate for such legislation. There is one area of consensus. We
have established that we want the system to be robust and fair. We want
tostart the long, difficult process of restoring public
confidence in a system in which, as we have heard this morning, there
is little public confidence. Sir Andrew Green said that, broadly
speaking, 80 per cent. of people think that the system is not working.
I have heard the large amount of evidence given to this Committee and
it is clear that the lack of confidence in the system goes both ways
and comes from both sides of the argument: it comes from those who
think that there is, broadly speaking, too much immigration into this
country and from those who that think that the current system makes it
too difficult for certain groups of people. Neither party has
confidence in the current system, so it is in the Minister’s
interest to try to engage them as much as
possible.
A
code that was properly discussed before the provisions came into
effect would offer not just guidance to those involved, but a degree of
reassurance and protection to those on the other side of the counter
who were going through the process. Apart from the advantage that that
would have in the outside world, laying the draft measures before
Parliament and, therefore, before the public would make the Government
more accountable for their actions. Although that may, in the short
term, be mildly uncomfortable for Ministers, I am sure that the
Minister would agree that it would be better to have a rocky
consultation period than for enacted legislation to
fall apart on the job. Governments of all parties have seen that happen
at various stages.
It is good
practice, which sensible Ministers should get into especially in
difficult and publicly sensitive areas, to consult more and do more in
respect of publishing codes and guidelines before the operation of
specific pieces of legislation commences. Amendment No. 65 seeks to do
that and I commend it to the Minister in that spirit. However, if he
does not accept it, as I suspect that he will not, and something goes
wrong, he cannot say that he was not
warned.
Paul
Rowen:
We have just agreed that wholesale powers should be
given to the Home Secretary to impose penalties for non-compliance with
clauses in the Bill. I do not have a problem with that, because the
Bill has a particular purpose and job. However, it is important that a
code of practice is subject to consultation and also approved by the
House. My amendment seeks to pursue the affirmative process, so that
the penalties are subject to public consultation before they come into
operation and are approved by the House. Without that surety, as has
been said earlier, the immigration system comes into disrepute.
Concerns about the system have been raised. The Bill helps us on the
way to developing our immigration and nationality policies. However, as
we are introducing such wide-ranging penalties and
appeals—powers that are solely limited to the Home
Secretary—we should at least ensure that that code of practice
is approved by the affirmative process in this House. I hope that the
Minister appreciates the reasons given by both sides of the House as to
why that might be a desirable process if the Bill is to operate
efficiently and with the credibility that he wants it to have in the
wider
community.
Mr.
Byrne:
I looked at this amendment very sympathetically as
well. I understand the ambitions that lie behind it, and those
ambitions are entirely sensible. It might be helpful if I say a little
about what the clause does and why it is important. It effectively
makes provision for a code of practice to be issued, so that the civil
penalty regime can operate with a degree of logic, predictability and
integrity. In particular, the code will set out those matters that must
be considered when the Secretary of State is determining whether to
give a penalty notice and what the amount will be. It may also require
the Secretary of State to consider decisions that have already been
taken. For example,if it has been decided that the right
sanction for non-compliance is to vary leave, or curtail leave, or deny
an application, the code will set out how some of those matters might
be taken into account.
The clause already provides
that the code must be published, that we must consult on it and that we
must lay a draft before Parliament. In addition, the clause also says
that the code will come into effect not by affirmative resolution but
by negative resolution. That is where I pause for thought. The reason
that we suggested in the Bill that a negative resolution rather than an
affirmative resolution would bring the code into force was that we drew
on a precedent that was set in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality
Act 2006. In that Act, we provided for a code to be issued that would
guide the way that the civil penalty regime would apply to those
employers who were caught employing somebody illegally. The Bill
contains a set of immigration procedures, so we looked back on
precedents in the field of immigration.
There is, however, another
precedent that could perhaps have been a more useful guide, which is
the precedent set in the Identity Cards Act 2006. In that Act, along
with the requirements to publish, consult and so on, we provided that
the first time that the code was brought into force there would not be
a negative procedure, but an affirmative procedure. Of course,
revisions could then be processed by negative procedure, but in the
first instance it was felt that the degree of scrutiny offered by the
affirmative procedure meant that that would be a wiser route to take.
Therefore, having heard the ambitions that have been expressed by
Opposition Members, I will examine the clause again to see what space
there is to improve
it.
Damian
Green:
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has
just said. As I said before, this was one of the amendments that was
tabled in a genuinely helpful spirit and if he will consider it in that
spirit, it would be churlish not to beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause
16
Conditional
leave to enter or
remain
Paul
Rowen:
I beg to move amendment No. 128, in
clause 16, page 9, line 15, leave
out from ‘State’ to end of line 16 and
insert—
‘where it
appears that there is evidence that establishes that he is likely to
abscond and that such a condition is justified as being necessary in
the interests of public order, public safety, national security or for
the prevention of crime;
and
(v) a condition
requiring him to reside at a specified address where it appears that
there is evidence that establishes that he is likely to abscond and
that such a condition is justified as being necessary in the interests
of public order, public safety, national security or for the prevention
of crime, provided that such conditions are consistent with the Human
Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights
andthe obligations of the United Kingdom under the
International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights
1966.’.
The
Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 25, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, at end
add—
‘(2) For the purposes
of section 3(1)(c)(v) of the 1971 Act any condition imposed upon
residence must be reasonable in all
circumstances.’.
No.
85, in
clause 16, page 9, line 16, at
end add—
‘(2) A condition
about residence shall not apply
if—
(a) the residence is
more than 25 miles from the nearest reporting centre;
or
(b) for employment purposes,
a different location is more
suitable.’.
No.
86, in
clause 16, page 9, line 16, at
end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before
Parliament, not more than 12 months after the commencement of the
provisions under this section, a report on the operation of these
conditions.’.
No. 129, in
clause 16, page 9, line 16, at
end add—
‘(2) After section
3(1)(c) of that Act
insert—
“(d) A
condition about reporting or residence under paragraph (c) above shall
not apply if the person is under the age of
18.”’.
Paul
Rowen:
We have had a good debate this morning, and we have
moved forward. I suspect that we will not have the same measure of
agreement with regard to clause 16. At first sight it seems inoffensive
and small, but its provisions are vital to people’s confidence
in the operation of our immigration system. It is about the conditions
that the Secretary of State may place on a person who has been granted
leave to remain.
We
are considering people’s liberty. When a decision has been made
that someone has a legitimate right to remain in the country, we may
want to place conditions on that right. I am concerned about the
open-ended nature of the clause. Amendment No. 128 would insert an
important safeguard to ensure that any conditions that the Secretary of
State places on someone staying in the country, such as restricting
their movement or place of abode, should comply fully with the UK
Government’s treaty obligations as set out in the Human Rights
Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights and with the
obligations that rest with us under the international covenant on civil
and political rights. That is important. If the Secretary of State has
cause to restrict someone’s movement, there must be clear
parameters and it must be stated clearly that the person subject to
that curtailment can use those treaties and obligations to argue
against the restriction if they feel it unfair and
unreasonable.
Mr.
Clappison:
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
What is there in the conditions in the Bill to prevent somebody from
arguing their case under the European convention on human rights or
other international agreements that this country has entered
into?
Paul
Rowen:
Much of what we have been doing has been because a
lot is left unsaid in the Bill. Being reasonable about the operation of
the Bill, we have attempted to specify matters. We are attempting here
to make it clear that the Bill will comply with the treaty obligations
that this country has entered into. No hon. Member should have a
problem with that, because they are policies to which this Government
have signed
up.
Amendment No. 129
relates to any restrictions placed on someone under the age of 18. I am
concerned about children being subject to stringent conditions. Will
the Under-Secretary explain why she feels that to be necessary? The
bulk of the young people concerned will be in full-time education. We
had debates earlier about who the right people are to deal with young
people, and I do not see the point of someone under the age of 18
having their education disrupted and having to travel long distances,
perhaps with their parents, to travel to a detention or immigration
centre. That would be disruptive and
could be quite unsettling to a young person. I therefore hope that we
can make a distinction for the reporting rights for young people, given
that they are highly unlikely to abscond if their parents are subject
to
reporting. 12.30
pm
The final
amendment actually tries to take the purpose of this clause further. I
am greatly concerned that as the law is currently framed, asylum
seekers are not allowed to work while their appeal is progressing. That
is expensive and unnecessary; given that many asylum seekers are in
this country for a considerable time, and at considerable cost to this
country, it would reduce the costs to the Exchequer if they were able
to gain employment. It is also good, from a human point of view, for
any individual to have self-worth and to demonstrate that by
employment.
So, the
purpose of amendment No. 130 is to grant permission to any person who
is granted limited right to remain,
“to seek employment from two
months after an appeal has been lodged”
I do not want to see that being used as
an excuse or reason for appeals to be delayed further. We need to
ensure that the appeal process is firm, fair and expedited. While this
is not an excuse to prolong the appeal, if that person is involved in
one then they ought to have the right to work—with any income
that they receive being offset against any benefits received. I hope
that the Minister can give us the assurances that we seek on the first
part of clause 16, and that he will consider extending it to allow
asylum seekers to gain employment.
Damian
Green:
It was clear, both in reading the written evidence
that was submitted to the Committee and over several sessions of oral
evidence that we have taken, that clause 16 was one of the most
difficult and controversial in the Bill. In that spirit, I welcome the
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for
Enfield, North, who will respond to this debate. Clearly, she has been
landed with this particular hot potato. Plus ça change, she may
well feel.
The three
amendments in my name, and that of my hon. Friend, all seek to tie down
whether this clause will be practical or unduly onerous on large groups
of people. The Committee will have heard what the hon. Member for
Rochdale has just said, particularly about its potential effect on
children. These amendments look more widely at anyone who would
suddenly find restrictions on them that were not there before, as a
result of the clause.
On the detail of the
amendments, amendmentNo. 25 simply seeks that
“any condition imposed upon
residence must be reasonable in all circumstances”.
That reflects the worries, which I am
sure the Minister will have absorbed from the written and oral
evidence, that the clause’s potential for putting onerous
restrictions on people is very great. We have seen not only those
fears, but vagueness in other areas around residency requirements. For
example, some sex offenders have got round that by putting down
patently ridiculous addresses such as “the woods”. No one
would want that failure in the system to be replicated in residency
requirements imposed by this Bill. I hope that if the Minister
accepts some or all of our amendments it will reassure those who think
that the conditions are onerous and too widespread, and encourage the
Government to ensure that the regulations are effective. Any
accommodation included under the residency requirements must be
inhabitable and conducive to the individual’s safety, and I hope
that the Minister will address those practical
matters.
Amendment No.
85 is a probing amendment of the serious consequences of the clause. At
the outer extreme of the fears expressed about the clause is that it
could be used for internal control by insisting that some people have
to live in certain places simply because of their immigrant status. I
dare say that Ministers would regard that as unacceptable; I am aware
that one may wish to have strict controls over where certain groups in
society can live, but I cannot believe they would wish to apply such
controls to anyone who has limited leave to remain in this country.
That will include many thousands of people who have lived here for a
long time and lead blameless and extremely useful lives. People fear
that the clause as drafted would have a serious effect on them, which
cannot be the intention of the
Bill.
The clause would
allow a Government to use the Bill for internal immigration controls.
Although reporting to an immigration officer may in some cases be
sensible for some categories of people, this blanket approach smacks of
an attempt to control the whereabouts of people who lead blameless
lives and who are accepted by the authorities as being in this country
legally.
It is not
too difficult to imagine scenarios in which the clause would have a
very serious effect on people’s lives. For example, a person who
has secured employment in a distant rural area and is required to
report to an immigration centre may find that the nearest one is 50 or
60 miles away. The proposal to set up centres for passport interviews
has already provoked resistance in rural areas because of the
travelling distance it will involve, the time it will take and the
inconvenience it will cause.
The amendment draws attention
to the fact that the clause may affect yet another group of people in
that respect. Anyone who takes employment in a rural area is
statistically unlikely to be highly paid, and therefore unlikely to
have access to a car. They will therefore have to rely on public
transport in areas where it is least available and reliable. People in
rural areas with low-paid jobs who are least able to afford it will
have to take days off just to report to immigration centres. The
Minister will argue that that is absurd and I agree that it is. During
the passage of this Bill we should think about whether we want to
impose such conditions.
If the point of the clause is
to give the Government the power to follow and track those who give
them particular concern, I would have a good deal of sympathy with that
policy. But the clause does not say that. It is so widely drawn that it
does not restrict itself to that laudable activity but goes well beyond
and will affect people whom no sensible Government will want to spend
time, resources and effort following round the country or keeping
address records for. I hope the Minister can consider those
points.
Amendment No. 86 reopens the
debate about commencement provisions from the other side. The Minister
made the point in a previous debate that he sympathised with the idea
of having a proper code of conduct before certain provisions of the
Bill are put in place. What we are saying about amendment No. 86 is
that the same thing should apply after the legislation is passed. We
are aware that there is considerable public concern surrounding these
measures—in particular the sweeping powers within the measures
that are included in this particular clause. It seems sensible from all
points of view that Parliament should be informed how the system is
working once it is in operation, which parts of it are or are not
functioning and what the Government suggest should be changed. This is
good from Parliament’s point of view—it will demonstrate
that our scrutiny of legislation does not have to end just because the
legislation is on the statute book and that we are actually concerned
with the practical impact of this legislation on the daily lives of
many thousands of people. But it will also act as a useful corrective
for Ministers and their officials, becauseif they know that a
public report will have to be made 12 months after the enactment of a
particular piece of legislation, that would serve to sharpen up the act
of everyone involved in the passage of the legislation and its
implementation.
If I
may tread on delicate ground, I would suggest that this is particularly
appropriate for the Home Office at this stage in its evolution,
because—I will not quote the Home Secretary on the IND again,
but Ministers will recognise what I am talking about—there is a
degree of public doubt about the ability of the Home Office to operate
large-scale change effectively. It would be a gesture of
self-confidence by Ministers to say that they were quite happy for
Parliament to return tothe subject and to have a public report
put before it12 months after the enactment. There would be
practical consequences as well, because if my fears are realised and
certain people are unable to take up work because of the requirements
under the residency terms of this clause, Parliament and the British
people should know about that because it would be an important feature
in the wider debate about immigration.
There has been some public
movement on the debate. A few years ago there was a feeling that people
were coming to this country to live off benefits; even those who are
most hostile to immigration have moved away from that and are now
worried about people coming here to work. If we find—as I
suspect we may—that we are passing legislation that makes it
more difficult for those who are in this country legally to work, it is
worth having that reported on as that would be a perverse effect which
I am sure the Minister does not want.
There are a number of other
human rights points, to which I hope we can return in the clause stand
part debate. These specific amendments seek to address some of the
fears of the groups that have scrutinised this clause. I hope the
Minister can look on them
sympathetically.
12.45
pm
Joan
Ryan:
It is a pleasure to speak in this Committee under
your Chairmanship, Mr. Illsley, and that of your
co-Chairman.
The clause
is very important and we hope thatthe measures in it will help
to improve contact management and enforce compliance with our
immigration laws. The measures are, therefore, important. However, I am
pleased to discuss the amendments because scrutiny of those measures is
very important. They place conditions and, to some extent, restrictions
on individuals and it is right that they should undergo close
scrutiny.
I hope that
I can reassure Opposition Members about the use of those powers. Clause
16 amendsan existing statutory provision—section 3 of
the Immigration Act 1971—by adding two new conditions regarding
reporting and residency. There is, therefore, no inconsistency in our
approach towards reporting and residency conditions and the other
conditions set out in section 3—police registration, employment,
maintenance and accommodation—all of which are very
important.
We are
very clear that the clause will be used to improve contact management
with particular categories of people and have indicated the two
categories with which we will seek to use these conditions first.
However, we consider that there are advantages to a light-touch
approach in the legislation, which will allow us to apply the new
powers to other categories, should a need for more effective contact
management become
manifest.
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Just before the
Under-Secretary turns to the amendments, what answer or comfort can she
give to Professor Anderson and his colleagues at Cambridge? When giving
evidence, he talked about overseas students who might be facing a
requirement to go to Bury St. Edmunds as the nearest reporting centre.
If he and his colleagues are trying to market Cambridge university
overseas and that potential requirement is part of the pitch, it will
make their lives rather more difficult. What answer does she have for
him?
Joan
Ryan:
The difference between the residencyand
reporting restrictions and the distance between places is an important
issue that I will come towhen discussing one of the
amendments. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not named
students with limited leave as one of the categories that we will apply
the provisions to at this stage. However, the power is broad and we do
not deny that these measures could cover anybody with limited leave.
The reassurance that I will give in a moment on amendment No. 85 will
probably cover his and Professor Anderson’s concerns should the
measures ever apply to students, although it is not envisaged that they
will.
Mr.
Clappison:
The Under-Secretary says that the provision
applies to all people with limited leave to remain. Will she tell us
who in particular she is thinking of? If not students, at whom is this
provision targeted?
Joan
Ryan:
Indeed, the issue was discussed in our evidence
session and I intend to come to the relevant groups. To make it clear
at the outset, the two identified categories of people to whom we will
seek to apply the conditions—not necessarily including every
single person in each category—are foreign national prisoners
whom we are unable to remove because of legal barriers and
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I shall say a little bit more
about those two groups in a moment, and I am sure that more will be
said about them in the stand part
debate.
Paul
Rowen:
I am interested by what the Under-Secretary says.
Given that she is seeking to apply the measures only to a limited
number of cases, why does the Bill not frame the provision in that way?
If the Government then want to extend it, it could be extended by an
affirmative resolution. Given what she said, does she accept that the
clause is very broad and too open-ended for Opposition
Members?
Joan
Ryan:
I accept that it is broad, but I do not accept that
it is too open-ended. As I said, we shall move on to respond to the
amendments and will, I hope, give the reassurance that the hon.
Gentleman is seeking.
I opened my remarks by saying
that there is no inconsistency between our approach here and the
overall approach in section 3 of the ImmigrationAct 1971,
which we are amending. The 1971 Act provides three conditions that can
be applied to limited leave, with no restriction on what groups within
the limited leave category we can apply them to. Equally, I said that
we thought that a light touch was appropriate so that we can be
flexible. If circumstances change, we will be able to use the
conditions as and when they are appropriate.
Amendment No. 25 would require
that
“any condition
imposed upon residence must be reasonable in all
circumstances”.
The Human
Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a
way that is incompatible with convention rights. There is also a
general legal requirement on public authorities to exercise their
powers in a reasonable way. That will apply to the new powers in clause
16. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that we apply our powers in a
reasonable way, but the Bill is trying to do so and other legislation
already exists to ensure that we do
so.
Mr.
Blunt:
While we are on the test of reasonableness, can the
Under-Secretary explain why the clause contains the
words
“to an immigration
officer or the Secretary of
State”?
Obviously,
immigration officers are responsible to the Secretary of State, as are
the police to some degree under the listed requirements to report. Is
there some suggestion that people will be required to report to the
Secretary of State as individuals? That cannot possibly be correct.
What does
“or the
Secretary of State”
actually mean? Is it a suggestion that
the Secretary of State does not have very much to do and can take on
that responsibility?
Joan
Ryan:
I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that
the Home Secretary is indeed busy and has plenty to do. A cursory
glance at the media on any particular day will reassure the hon.
Gentleman of that. As he says, the line of reporting ultimately ends at
the Secretary of State, so it is only right that the Secretary of State
should have the same
requirement.
In terms
of reasonableness, there is little point in creating further
legislation within the Bill when the Human Rights Act 1998, convention
rights and the legal requirement on public authorities to exercise
powers in a reasonable way already exists.
Mr.
Blunt:
I did not quite understand. Is that some formulaic
use of statute, whereby the Secretary of State has to appear when
officers of his Department are named—in this case immigration
officers—or is it some sort of cover for an ability to introduce
another set of officers to whom people might be required to
report?
Joan
Ryan:
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it says
“report to...the
Secretary of State”
so
that we can require an individual to report to an IND official who is
not an immigration officer. That is the reason; it not in the least
Machiavellian, nor are we trying to fit in with anybody’s
agenda. Our aim is to keep in touch with certain individuals whom we
have an interest in monitoring more closely. There is no need to amend
the clause by including fine details that can be left to the policy
guidance that is to be published later.
Mr.
Clappison:
I see the Under-Secretary’s point about
keeping in touch with foreign prisoners who have been released from
prison but cannot be deported for some reason. Can she say a little
about the other case that she mentioned? She referred to asylum-seeking
children, and amendment No. 129 relates to them. Does she require this
condition in respect of those children for the sake of their welfare or
for some other reason?
Joan
Ryan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for probing a little more
closely on that important category. If he will bear with me, I shall
come to it. The protection issue that he raises is integral to our
desire to apply such conditions to unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children. We will apply reporting and residency conditions to children
only when strictly necessary, either for their own welfare or with a
view to closer contact management as they approach 18, particularly
because, all things being equal, we will seek to remove unaccompanied
asylum-seeking children when they reach the age of
18.
We will liaise
with local authorities when deciding on the application of the
conditions to children in care. Let me remind the Committee—the
hon. Member for Rochdale has clearly taken much interest in the
matter—that on 1 March we published a consultation paper on
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, “Planning Better Outcomes
and Support for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children”. That
includes proposals to reduce the disproportionate burden of caring for
such children that falls on local
authorities in London and the south-east. It proposes concentrating care
provision for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in local authority
areas in which special infrastructure exists, and ensuring that care
planning takes into account a young person’s immigration
status. Although
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have many needs in common with
other children in care, they also have some very different needs and
reasons for being in care. Many are much older when they go into the
care system, and their problem is that they are separated from their
families. It could be that they are not being returned to their country
of origin not because they are at risk of harm or in danger because of
the circumstances in the country, but because the reception
arrangements do not exist, or we
cannot establish them in order to return them safely. As the
consultation paper indicates, we are working very closely with social
workers and local authorities to ensure that specialist care is in
place and that communication with social workers is good. It is much
improved; there have been problems in the past in that regard and that
is why we are taking measures to address
them.
Paul
Rowen:
Will the Minister give
way?
Joan
Ryan:
I will give way in a moment. I understand that the
hon. Gentleman wishes to say more on the matter.
It being One o’clock,
The Chairman
adjourned the Committee
without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at
half-past Four
o’clock.
| 
