 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates UK Borders Bill |
UK Borders Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 13 March 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]UK Borders BillClause 16Conditional
leave to enter or
remain
Amendment
proposed [this day
]: 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 and the obligations of
the United Kingdom under the International Convenant on Civil and
Political Rights 1966.’.—[Paul
Rowen.]
4.30
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing 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.”’.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan
Ryan):
Welcome to our proceedings, Mr. Amess.
It is my pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I was concluding
the first
part of my remarks on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and the
hon. Member for Rochdale was seeking to intervene. Does he still wish
to avail himself of that
opportunity?
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I am glad that you have joined us
for our deliberations, Mr. Amess. Does the Minister not
accept that far better arrangements could be made than using
immigration and nationality directorate officers? She talked about the
current consultation. If there is a requirement to deal with
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, would it not be better to deal
with them through social services or local authorities, which have
expertise in dealing with young
people?
Joan
Ryan:
It is important to bear in mind that we are not
talking simply about children or children in care. We are talking about
children with limited leave, who therefore have a relationship with the
immigration service and the IND. I have made the point that immigration
officers and IND officials who deal with such children are specially
trained. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. It is
important that the IND is involved in such situations for the reasons
that I have given, but it is equally important that the officers are
specially
trained.
Current
reporting arrangements for asylum seekers do not generally expect
individuals to travel further than 25 miles to report. The amendment
tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford dealt with that distance. If
there is no reporting centre within 25 miles, we will find alternative
arrangements—we could, for example, require the person to report
to a local police station or other identified location. We anticipate
that similar policy currently applying to asylum seekers would apply to
those with limited leave who are required to
report.
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for
giving way, and for her clarification of what she expects to happen to
those who live far from a reporting centre. Can she give us a rough
idea of how many people would be affected by such a policy? How many
people does she expect will find themselves reporting
regularly?
Joan
Ryan:
That point came up in the evidence sessions. I said
that we expect the numbers for foreign national prisoners to be
small—possibly tens rather than hundreds. I cannot give an exact
figure for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, because we are not
suggesting that every unaccompanied asylum-seeking child will be
subject to the conditions, but around 1,960 grants of discretionary
leave at initial decision were made for that category in 2005, so the
number would be somewhat less than that. I hope that that acts as a
guide to the hon.
Gentleman.
In terms of
reporting residency, it is clearly not in our interests to force
individuals to live in an area where they could not report to the IND
or where it would be impossible for them to find work. If an individual
wanted to find work in another location, the residency condition would
ensure that they kept us informed of where they were moving and, in
some
cases, our approval of the new address would be required. Once they had
moved, reporting conditions would be modified accordingly, so that they
could report to a reporting centre nearer to their new home.
As to the terms of
residency—I am dealing with amendment No. 129 now—we will
grant leave with residency conditions only where that is justified by a
need for close monitoring of an individual. We have no intention of
applying residency conditions to refugees, students or work permit
holders, as some non-governmental organisations have alleged. We have
already discussed that in relation to students. In the first instance
we may apply the residency conditions, as I said, to certain
asylum-seeking children, with a view to improving child protection, as
well as facilitating their removal at the age of 18.
There is evidence that children
go missing from care, and we want not to take on but to complement the
valuable work done by social services. Granting leave with reporting
and, where needed, residency conditions, should mean that a
child’s absence is noted at an early stage. I think that what I
have said covers some points that the hon. Member for Hertsmere made
about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We should be able to
notice an absence early, and establish the reason for it, in which case
all reasonable steps to locate the child could be
taken.
Paul
Rowen:
The hon. Member for Ashford has mentioned the
distance of 25 miles, but I want to suggest the practical example of an
unaccompanied child asylum seeker in Rochdale being required to travel
to Salford, where the centre is. I should feel much happier about the
amount of disruption to the child’s routine if the immigration
officer would come to a centre in Rochdale, rather than have the child
travel across the conurbation, with disruption to their education,
among other things. Would the Minister consider something like that as
an acceptable reporting
arrangement?
Joan
Ryan:
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a yes or no answer
for every possible circumstance, but I can, I think, give an assurance
that we intend to be, as the law indeed requires, reasonable. We intend
to be flexible and we do not intend to create huge disruption and
difficulty in the life of a child in the circumstances in question. We
would seek to work closely with a social worker and with social
services and the local authority, to ensure that we could achieve as
smoothly as possible, with the minimum possible disruption and maximum
possible protection for the child, our aims of protecting the child and
subsequently preparing them for removal, on their becoming an adult. I
hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. As to the notion of 25
miles, although I understand that the amendment is probably a probing
one, we would never put something so precise in the Bill, as I am sure
hon. Members
realise.
We believe
that it is right to maintain closer contact with older children whose
leave is about to expire. That will allow us to ensure that appropriate
arrangements are made for their removal from the UK, or for further
applications for leave. We make no apology for seeking to return young
people who no longer qualify for leave when they reach the age of 18.
Sending children
without genuine asylum claims to the United Kingdom in the hope that
they will establish a footing for the rest of the family in this
country is an abuse of the asylum system, and is exploitative of the
child. Returning those who have been sent in that way, when they reach
adulthood, will discourage that unacceptable practice.
We also intend to apply the new
powers to foreign criminals, of whom we have said less in debating this
clause. They are an important category. I think that monitoring foreign
criminals who cannot be removed at present because of legal barriers,
with a view to their eventual removal, is clearly in the national
interest.
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Presumably those people
will be of some interest to the police, having been recently released
from prison. The Government already have powers to require them to
report to the police. Would it not be more appropriate for them to do
that, and for the police then to inform the immigration and nationality
directorate of their whereabouts, so that the police would know where
those convicted criminals
were?
Joan
Ryan:
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we
would indeed always encourage our agencies to work together in
co-operation for the best outcomes. It is important that we apply the
measures to the group in question sothat we can effect removal
as soon as possible. That condition is also important because this
period should not count towards settlement—a point that has been
little discussed but which is important to the clause and those
categories.
Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I am with the hon. Lady
on that latter point. They should not count towards settlement for the
purpose of staying four or five years in this country. With reference
to the case just mentioned by the Minister, of foreign criminals and
the desirability of having a condition of residence for them, would she
tell us what the sanction is for breach of that
condition?
Joan
Ryan:
If my memory serves me correctly, the sanctions are
a fine of up to £5,000 and a prison sentence. They will operate
as an effective deterrent to anyone who seeks to avoid meeting the
conditions on their leave.
I know that
Liberty has said that residency conditions could breach article 8,
“Right to respect for private and family life”, and
article 11, “Freedom of assembly and association”, of the
European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for Ashford was
seeking reassurance on those concerns. I can assure him that that is
not the case. Some interference with articles 8 and 11 is permitted
when it is in accordance with the law in the interests of the
permissible aim of the state and when it is proportionate to that aim.
Case law has established that the maintenance of effective immigration
control and public safety are permissible aims and that decisions taken
pursuant to those aims should be proportionate in all but a minority of
exceptional cases.
In
response to amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford,
and the question of reporting to Parliament on the operation of clause
16, I have some
sympathy with what he said about the need to report to Parliament on
these matters. We intend to be open about the operation of this clause
and about the work of the new border and immigration agency as a whole.
In this instance, I do not think that effective post-legislative
scrutiny would be best achieved by the requirement of an individual
report, which, from the wording of amendment No. 86, would be a
one-off.
I understand
that these amendments were probably written before our new clauses on
the independent inspectorate were tabled. The introduction of that
inspectorate will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise the work of the
new agency. The remit of the independent inspectorate will include a
number of key themes relevant to the operation of the border and
immigration agency, including practice and procedure in making
decisions, consistency of approach, the information it provides and the
treatment of those that use its services. The inspectorate will report
annually to the Secretary of State, who will have to lay that report
before Parliament. Therefore the terms of the independent
inspectorate’s remit meet the objectives of the amendment and I
hope that, following that reassurance, it will be
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
Before I call the hon. Member for Rochdale, I
advise the Committee that I am not minded to have a clause stand part
debate. I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind when dealing with
the conclusion of this particular debate and the next
one.
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance
on some of the amendments that we have tabled today. However, it is a
pity that the consultation is, as she said, still ongoing yet here we
are dealing with the Bill. It would have helped our deliberations on
child asylum seekers if the consultation had been concluded before we
considered the provisions.
4.45
pm
Damian
Green:
If we are not to have a clause stand part debate, I
wish to respond to the Minister’s remarks about my amendments.
In a sense, there is a reflection of the problem with our debate on
this clause: it is almost happening on twin tracks that do not meet
each other. The Minister is dealing with the current Government
intention of the clause, which is to deal with foreign prisoners or
former prisoners and unaccompanied children, but that is not what the
Bill says; as the Minister has honestly admitted, the Bill could be
used for different and much wider groups of people—indeed, it
could be used for any group of people.
The amendments tabled by the
hon. Member for Rochdale and I sought in part to pin down this or
future Governments on what this clause could achieve. It is worth
pausing to think about that, because the Minister has acknowledged that
the provision could be applied to anyone. It has already been
stretched; in the original regulatory impact assessment it was supposed
to apply only to foreign prisoners, but Ministers then briefed the
various interested bodies that it would also apply to unaccompanied
asylum-seeking children. So,
even before the Bill was discussed the purpose of the clause was being
expanded. Who can tell how it will be expanded in the future?
The breadth of the clause means
that the use of the powers could not simply be confined to the two
particular groups that I mentioned. In their present form, the
provisions could be used to impose a curfew requirement on anyone,
including someone who is here as a refugee and who has been a model
citizen.
Joan
Ryan:
In fact, it is not possible to impose a curfew or,
as has been suggested in other places, electronic tagging, because
those measures can apply only where we have the right to detain. We do
not have the right to detain those granted limited leave. I hope that
that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful for that response. I am not sure that
“a condition about residence”, which is what paragraph
(v) provides for, cannot be interpreted as, “To be at that place
of residence at a particular time of day, every day”. I accept
the Minister’s assurance, but the Bill does not make that point
obvious.
I also wish
to consider the practicalities. I do not agree with all the arguments
about the clause that the Refugee Council has advanced, but some are
powerful, specifically those relating to unaccompanied minors. It makes
the valid point that there is no evidence to suggest that minors are
more likely to abscond than any other category of non-nationals; on the
contrary, it is in their interests not to abscond, as they are
overwhelmingly likely to be dependent on support from social services
for their daily bread.
Secondly, if, as a result of
the review process, a negative decision is made, it would clearly be in
the individual’s interests not to abscond in order for them to
pursue their appeal. It is difficult to see what additional benefit is
gained by the measure we are discussing or how it would significantly
expedite removal when the unaccompanied minor turns 18. At best, it may
well have no impact on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and at
worst it will harm them.
The Minister will be aware that
the Refugee Council argues that if any extension of such powers is
necessary, they should accurately reflect their intended targets and
the international human rights standards by which the UK is bound. She
has assured us that certain articles of the various human rights
conventions are not breached by the clause, but she will also be aware
that that is a controversial view. It is a general principle of human
rights law that where individuals are lawfully within a state, they
should enjoy freedom of movement and residence in that state. That
principle is contained in article 2 of the fourth protocol of the
European convention on human rights and in article 12 of the
international covenant on civil and political rights of 1966, which the
UK signed and ratified. It is arguable that parts of the clause could
stretch those particular protocols if not breach them altogether. The
Minister spoke about article 8 of the ECHR, which relates to the right
to respect for private family life and home. She has clearly had advice
that the provisions do not breach it; I hope that she is right about
that, not least for the taxpayer’s sake if we have to fight
cases on it.
Finally, I return to the
practical point. As long as the intended targets of the measures are
not reflected in the clause, we are in danger of allowing through
legislation that is wide open to function creep, that unpleasant
phenomenon that we have mentioned in several debates. We have seen it
happen: section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was infamously used
against Mr. Wolfgang, the 82-year-old heckler at a Labour
party conference. I am sure that when Ministers passed that
legislation, they did not intend to use it against hecklers at Labour
party conference or people who shout, “Nonsense!” at
Ministers.
Damian
Green:
I am feeling particularly generous this afternoon.
I suspect that if they had wanted to, they would have found other means
of imposing their will on such people. Indeed, with the vote coming up
tomorrow, I suspect that they would end up using those means against
their own colleagues.
There is a serious point here.
We have seen a notorious example in recent times of function creep in
some serious legislation. It is worth the Committee pausing to consider
whether we are giving too much power to Governments and laying
ourselves wide open to the possibility of the legislation being used
against people in ways that Ministers explicitly tell us that they do
not intend now. We can see that happening and we should not allow it to
happen. We should pass properly defined legislation that aims at
specific targets, does what it is intended to do and does not allow
these Ministers or any future group of Ministers to do things that the
Committee cannot possibly anticipate. On those grounds, I regret that
the Minister has found herself unable to accept any of this group of
amendments. I know that you feel that we have discussed the issues
sufficiently fully not to have a debate on clause stand part,
Mr. Amess, but I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the
clause.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(2) Any person
granted limited leave to remain shall be allowed to seek employment
from two months after an appeal has been
lodged.
(3) Any benefits
received by a person granted limited leave to remain shall take account
of earned
income.’.
So
far we have been talking about increasing the restrictions that are
placed on people who are granted limited leave to remain. The amendment
seeks to improve the situation of asylum seekers who have limited leave
to remain. At the moment, an asylum seeker who is granted leave to
remain while their appeal is considered is prevented from seeking
employment and must rely totally on benefits. It is an important
principle that people should have the dignity of being able to support
themselves. Engaging them in gainful employment would also offset some
of the cost of keeping them.
The amendment would have a
number of benefits. We discussed underground employment and people
being exploited by unscrupulous employers. That would not happen were
asylum seekers able to work legally. Furthermore, it will be much
easier to keep tabs on such people if they were in
employment—their biometric visas would ensure that details of
that employment and other information was recorded properly on the
system. That would be far better than having them work unofficially for
unscrupulous employers and subject to no control, or not working at all
and burdening the state.
We are seeking to ensure that a
person could seek employment within two months of their asylum appeal
being lodged. That would be welcomed by taxpayers who support them at
the moment and by asylum seekers
themselves.
“two months after an appeal has
been lodged.”
Does the
word “appeal” mean the initial application for asylum or
an appeal against a refusal of an initial asylum
application?
Paul
Rowen:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I
was referring to the initial application for asylum. Within two months
of the date on which the process is started—when the asylum
application has been made and the case is being heard—they could
seek employment. Those employment rights would continue until the
person was
removed.
Joan
Ryan:
I accept that the hon. Member for Rochdale is of the
view, policy-wise, that asylum seekers should be allowed to work.
However, his amendment refers to persons granted limited leave and so
would not apply to asylum seekers. I understand what he is getting at,
but this would be the wrong place to make such
provision.
Mr.
Blunt:
It would help the Committee if the Minister
explained such granting of limited leave to remain. Clause 16 is aimed
at people to whom the Government would not want to grant leave to
remain, and whom they are in fact attempting to remove—foreign
prisoners whom the Government are attempting to deport. Where does
their formal leave to remain in the United Kingdom come from and who
grants it? Will the Minister explain the legal position so that we can
form a view of the merits of allowing such people to
work?
Joan
Ryan:
I am happy to provide that clarification, although
we have been discussing the matter for a considerable time so I am
slightly concerned that Members still are not clear. As we said, one
group to whom the limited leave applies consists of foreign national
prisoners whom we want to remove—the hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right about that—but cannot, owing to legal barriers,
usually in relation to the situation in their country of origin. As he
said, another group consists of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children,
who, for the most part, we cannot return to
their country of origin because we cannot establish good reception
arrangements. We must put their care and safety first.
Students and a number of other
groups also have leave, but not asylum seekers—because they are
asylum seekers! Those granted limited leave might well have gone
through the asylum process and been rejected or found not to have a
founded application. However, for whatever reason, we might not be able
to remove them, but must grant them limited leave according to their
human rights, and under the convention and other such legislation.
However, we want to place restrictions on that leave; and we want to
ensure that that limited leave does not count towards settlement. For
instance, national prisoners will get six months limited leave if they
make a claim under the European convention on human rights. On that
basis, they would achieve limited leave, although others would need to
satisfy or challenge a number of other legal conditions in order to
achieve
it.
5
pm
When moving the
amendment, the hon. Member for Rochdale referred only to asylum
seekers. As a matter of policy, the Government do not consider that
asylum seekers should normally have a right to work. We believe that it
is important to maintain a distinction between legal migration for
employment, and asylum—the latter being for people who seek
protection.
I have
already said how the amendment would apply if we were to allow people
granted limited leave to remain to seek employment after two months.
First, two months seems a rather arbitrary time. I am not sure why it
was selected. However, it would undermine immigration control by
narrowing the circumstances in which limited leave to remain could be
granted, subject to employment conditions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned
benefit entitlement. Suffice it to say that that, too, is not really a
matter for us but for the Department for Work and
Pensions.
Mr.
Clappison:
I have some sympathy with the amendment,
because some asylum seekers have talents that could be used to the
advantage of the country. However, as we were warned this morning by
Migrationwatch UK, we need to keep in mind the firm distinction between
economic migration and claims for asylum. Is not the real solution to
speed up the asylum process as much as possible and then to use the
talents of those who have been recognised as having a genuine asylum
claim? Is it not regrettable that, for many years now, the process has
been so very
slow?
Joan
Ryan:
Indeed; and speeding up the asylum system is the key
to our approach. In fact, we are having some success. The hon.
Gentleman will know that, with the national asylum model, the
end-to-end process is much more effective than previously. It has made
a substantial difference in the time that it takes for cases to go from
initial claim to completion.
May I say to the hon. Member
for Rochdale that clause 16 does not introduce any new restrictions on
the employment of persons granted limited leave to remain? As I said,
the amendment would narrow the circumstances in which leave could be
granted, subject to employment restrictions. It could achieve the
opposite of what he seeks, although I understand the point that he is
making.
Paul
Rowen:
I should like to put a couple of scenarios to the
Minister to explain when the amendment might apply. At the moment, we
have a number of people from Zimbabwe and Iran who, for various
reasons, are not able to go back to their own country, but they have
not been granted asylum; in the case of Zimbabwe, the process has been
frozen. If a nurse or a doctor from Zimbabwe who was perfectly well
qualified was in that situation, would it not make sense for them to be
able to work and thus be of benefit to this
country?
Joan
Ryan:
We do return people to Zimbabwe, and voluntary
return is entirely available. However, the hon. Gentleman will know
that some key decisions by the courts have been in favour of the
Government returning people to Zimbabwe; and we await the outcome of
the latest
hearing.
Kerry
McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): On a similar point, there
are a large number of people from Somalia in my constituency. We have a
situation in which many of those people are failed asylum seekers, but
there are few forced deportations to Somalia—about half a dozen
over the past few years. The political situation in Somalia gives cause
for optimism for a few weeks and then suddenly everything goes
drastically wrong again. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, people
who are highly skilled and can make a real contribution are, at the
moment, making no contribution at all and are in limbo. In some cases,
they have been in limbo for many years. Will the Minister explain what
we should do with people in that
situation?
Joan
Ryan:
I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, but
those with limited leave may or may not be subjected to employment
restrictions. As I said, the clause will not in any way introduce new
restrictions. There are people who have limited leave who do have the
ability to work.
I
believe that the amendment would potentially undermine the effective
operation of immigration control. Therefore, I say to the hon. Member
for Rochdale that I cannot accept
it.
Mr.
Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I have a certain
amount of sympathy with the Minister because she always gets what could
be called the hospital passes in the Home Office and the most difficult
briefs. I would like to think that she is among friends this afternoon,
although not necessarily in the Chamber—as they say,
“kind words butter no parsnips”. Obviously, she has
comprehensively answered the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale
and has made the point about asylum seekers and unaccompanied children.
I would like to press her on the issue of foreign national prisoners
with limited leave to remain. What is her understanding of the
ability of that group of people to access benefits? I am not clear about
what their situation is in terms of
benefits.
Joan
Ryan:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I
see that the hon. Members for Reigate and for Ashford are smiling.
There is a possibility that those with limited leave can access
benefits, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Rochdale, that is a
matter for the Department for Work and Pensions and has no proper place
in the Bill. I hope that I have adequately explained my reasons for not
accepting the amendment and that he will withdraw
it.
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Unsurprisingly, I
suppose, I rise to support the amendment. A difficulty raised by the
Transport and General Workers Union and the trade unions in the
evidence sessions is that employers who are in the twilight zone like
to stay there. They like to employ undocumented workers who have no
right to work because they have no rights and therefore cannot enforce
any employment rights. An issue that has been raised and needs to be
addressed is the complex situation that exists in terms of immigration
and employment law and the lack of a one-to-one relationship between
the two. If we are aiming to introduce legislation on the basis of
evidence rather than mere assertion, there is a merit in considering
that issue in relation to the people who have a right to be here and
work. It is clear that some people have a right to be here to study.
Then there are the people about whom we are not quite sure; and then
there are the people who should not be here, and obviously if they
should not be here, they should not have a right to work. We need to
consider this evidence-based question: is it really helpful to tell
people, when we do not know whether they have a right to be here or
not, that they cannot work? Would it be better to say, “No,
let’s not have those people as a burden on the state.
Let’s not have the taxpayer look after them. Let’s say,
if they can look
after—”
Damian
Green:
Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the apparently
exhaustive list of those who are here, he missed out one group, which
relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, East: people
who have no right to be here, but whom the Government cannot remove
from this country. They may well not be entitled to benefits and cannot
work and are therefore left to destitution or criminality. I am
reinforcing the point being made by the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Yardley: the situation is even more difficult than he is making
out.
John
Hemming:
I accept that point. If the Government are going
to argue the thesis that people whom we know we cannot remove but whose
status is uncertain must depend on the state or be destitute, what
evidence do the Government have that the proposal would undermine
immigration law?
Paul
Rowen:
I have listened carefully to the Minister and I
understand her point about the drafting of the amendment. However, I
believe that important issues are at stake, although perhaps my
amendment does not
address them properly. The situation of people who perhaps have no
permanent right to be here but who cannot be removed is intolerable. I
would like us to be able to grant them employment rights, for the very
good reason that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley
said, they would then be in the open and not in the twilight zone,
where they can be
exploited.
We have
only to consider the case of the cockle pickers up in Morecambe to see
what happens when people whose status is not adequately known are used
by shadowy employers. There are no proper controls and they end up
losing their lives as a result. I want us to have a system that is
regulated.
I accept
the Minister’s point about the drafting of my amendment and I
will seek leave to withdraw it, although I give her notice that when we
return to the Bill at a later stage, I would like to have an amendment
that addresses those points, because I believe that there is support
for such an amendment. I was a little disappointed that the Minister
did not make an offer to the effect that the Government would examine
that. I give her notice that we want to return to the issue, because we
think, certainly given what the TGWU said to us in the evidence
session, that the issue is important and needs to be satisfactorily
resolved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman
,
being of the
opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising
thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the
amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to
Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
6.
Division
No.
8
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 16 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 14 March 2007 |