| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chris Huhne: I am astonished that the Minister has the effrontery to come to the House peddling that extraordinary line. Although the e-Borders scheme is necessary to check people who have short-term and student visas, building a massive database of the travel movements of every member of our population is unnecessary. The Government are going overboard, and will lose the argument about something that is essential by attempting to gild the lily and go far beyond what is necessary. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Mr. Woolas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Huhne: I have given way so many times, but I cannot resist doing so again.
Mr. Woolas: I am very grateful that the Liberal Democrat party acknowledges the desirability of electronic borders control, which it previously described as a Big Brother database. Will the hon. Gentleman now show his true European credentials and admit that if we want to count people coming into our country, we must co-operate with foreign countries in allowing them access to our data?
Chris Huhne: The Minister is simply failing to get the point. We do not need to build a massive database of the travel movements of every citizen in this country in order to make effective exit checks on those with short-term visas and ensure that we do not have illegal overstayers. If the Minister cannot understand that simple point, all I can say is that it is time for him to make way for somebody who can.
We also need tougher enforcement among employers, yet the Bill is silent on the subject. Such enforcement is the only effective way to curb illegal immigration once people have gained entry to this country, yet in 12 years of this Government, just 114 employers have been prosecuted for having illegal immigrants on their staff. We need greater efforts at integration—through language teaching, for example—yet there is nothing in the Bill that will help. Indeed, the numbers learning English are down by 39 per cent. We need better planning for public services, yet Ministers can give no assurances on the basis of what is in the Bill.
The chaotic nature of this Labour Government’s immigration policy is the principal reason why there has been such a massive rise in animosity towards immigrants. The increasingly punitive rhetoric adopted by Ministers, not least the Minister who will wind up the debate, has led many of the general public to believe that immigration is bad for this country. Frankly, that is a tragedy. Illegal immigration is certainly bad, and we need to be tougher; but legal immigration has brought great benefits, and we should say so loud and clear. Yet the Bill is another example of such knee-jerk policy making.
Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. Bits of it are, frankly, worrying. The route to naturalisation is being made yet longer and more complicated, with more conditions being placed upon people wishing to go down that route. Much of the Bill is widely recognised as confusing. The new functions of UK Border Agency officers in customs matters, for example, are still a puzzle. Much of the rest is left undefined, with only the promise of statutory instruments, frustrating our curiosity.
That is sloppy legislation. Many who have commented on the Bill, such as Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, have made exactly the same observations. Statutory instruments are a useful tool, but the process cannot and should not be regarded as a substitute for the proper legislative scrutiny that primary legislation receives. There is no detail to be scrutinised because everything is left to statutory instruments, so real scrutiny in this Chamber is simply impossible.
To deal with those and other problems, the House of Lords has made some important amendments. Unfortunately, however, Ministers have already promised to get rid of them in this House, with its inbuilt majority, although I hope that that will not ensure support for absolutely any amendments that the Government see fit to introduce. Indeed, I look forward to making common cause with those on the Labour Back Benches who have expressed doubts.
Jeremy Corbyn: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about amendments, may I remind him of my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)—which he will have heard—about the anomaly of the Chagos islanders and the unfortunate failure of the House of Lords to insert an appropriate amendment to grant justice to those who were thrown off the islands, but who, because of the bad drafting of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, are denied the right of access to British citizenship to which all others are rightly entitled?
Chris Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He will certainly have our support if he intends to table an amendment on the issue, which is an anomaly that we need to deal with.
A national border force is necessary, but why the delay? Such a force should unite the present border control functions of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and the UK Border Agency, yet the proposals as drafted in part 1 of the Bill are still a muddle. They broadly extend the current powers of UKBA staff and others, as determined by the Secretary of State, but they provide no specific details. What exactly are the “general customs matters” that the UKBA will have the authority to address? The extension of powers that are exercisable by immigration officials are worrying, especially when they are so ill defined. We are concerned that the new powers blur the distinction between immigration controls and criminality. We share the concerns of Liberty, for example, that part 1 sends the signal that immigrants are, by definition, criminally suspicious. In addition, we will be pressing for clarification and reassurance from the Government on exactly how long UKBA officials would be able to detain a person at their offices, as these powers caused much confusion on all sides in the Lords.
The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives tabled amendments on these subjects—albeit with different details—during consideration of the Bill in the other place. We will seek to address the issues again in Committee, particularly with regard to giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission a remit to investigate the UKBA, given the extent of the new powers, and to the implementation of our own integrated border force, as previously discussed.
Part 2 amends the rules on naturalisation. Again, we have some concerns. The new rules will make naturalisation more difficult to achieve, but many of the details are
absent. We do not yet know what types of visa will mean that a stay would qualify as time spent towards achieving naturalisation. Similarly, the eight or five years residency requirements to be eligible for naturalisation can be amended by secondary legislation under clause 42(2), providing no certainty at all for those embarking on the process. I very much take the point made by Conservative Back Benchers about the transitional arrangements, for those who had expected their naturalisation to be able to continue, under clause 39. We will definitely support the retention of that measure in the Bill.
The extension of the qualifying period for naturalisation is likely to have a detrimental effect on community relations, and will place applicants in difficult circumstances if they are denied access to mainstream benefits and services for longer periods. This is particularly true of asylum seekers, who are largely neglected by the Bill. We will continue to push for further changes to the Bill, to ensure that time spent in Britain by refugees prior to the determination of their claims will count as part of the qualifying period.
The introduction of a formal volunteering process is a cause for concern. Is it right that migrants should be expected to do more than those born with British citizenship? Again, the Bill does not specify what types of activity will qualify as counting towards citizenship. Neither does it address the inherently discriminatory aspects of the proposals. People in cities will find it much easier to volunteer than those living in remote communities, for example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has also made the point about people who are involved in shift work or have problems for reasons of health or of family circumstances.
The process will be an administrative nightmare, too. How will the Government track what has been done and what has not? How will they ensure that people are not bypassing the system, as we have seen happen with tier 4 of the points-based immigration system, and that there is not an explosion in the number of so-called bogus colleges? The Government’s track record on managing this type of project does not inspire confidence. We do not want or need a whole new bureaucratic system to deal with voluntary activities when, by their very nature, they should be voluntary.
Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has already identified a potential problem with bogus voluntary organisations? An organisation to accredit voluntary organisations will no doubt be needed, thereby introducing another layer of bureaucracy into the system.
Chris Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely correct.
Part 3 is much amended from its original form, and much improved. The effective abolition of the common travel area with Ireland was unnecessary and without rationale, and it may have breached human rights. We very much support the new proposals, which maintain the system of open borders on air and sea routes between the UK and the Republic of Ireland that has been in position since partition in 1921.
Similarly, my noble Friend Lord Smith of Clifton inserted a very sensible protection against what the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has described
as “mission creep”, which prevents any provision relating to immigration control for persons entering, or seeking to enter, the UK by land from being made by Order in Council. We will fight for these changes to be maintained through the Bill’s journey in this House.
There are of course some welcome features in a Bill this long. Clause 56 in part 4, which widens the definition of exploitation in the offence of human trafficking, is a positive move for the protection of children. Further measures to introduce a duty to ensure the protection of children in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality are again welcome, although widening those measures to cover children when outside the UK may also be desirable.
In total, this is a disappointing Bill. It is disappointing because it fails to rise to the challenges of an absolutely crucial field of policy. It defers difficult decisions to later statutory instruments and it panders to populism by making naturalisation more cumbersome and difficult. The Bill also represents a series of missed opportunities in failing to accelerate the reintroduction of exit checks, to address illegal immigrants or to reform the asylum system. We will not vote against the Bill tonight because we welcome the provisions to allow a more effective attack on child trafficking, but we sincerely urge Ministers to look again at the many holes that it still contains.
5.26 pm
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), the shadow Liberal Democrat spokesman.
We do live in very interesting times and although we have had no announcement from the Home Office, I am taking my lead from the shadow Home Secretary in assuming that the Home Secretary is going to stand down. When he paid tribute to her, she did not jump to the Dispatch Box and tell him that he was wrong. Although the Home Secretary is no longer in her place I, too, want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to her, as this is going to be her last outing at the Dispatch Box in her current role.
My right hon. Friend has been and is the first woman Home Secretary and she has done an excellent job. It is a very tough job, as her successors will find out. Perhaps for no other job than Prime Minister is the patience of a secular saint so required on account of the huge amount of work that has to be done. Every single hour of the day, something is happening in respect of this portfolio, which covers policing, immigration, justice, home affairs, the European dimension and counter-terrorism.
My right hon. Friend has always been extremely helpful to the Home Affairs Committee. I see in his place the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), another member of the Committee, and other members have been coming in and out of the Chamber. Whenever called to give evidence, the Home Secretary has been there, and she has always been transparent, open and honest. We have disagreed on many aspects of policy, particularly on the issue of police pay when matters became pretty robust, but on all other issues, my right hon. Friend has proved open and able to engage in all sorts of discussions with us. We are very grateful for what she has done.
The Home Secretary goes at the top of her game. Her moving on came as a surprise to me, but I know that she will make a contribution to other aspects of public life and, indeed, to the life of Parliament as she continues to be an MP. I hope that the Minister for Borders and Immigration will pass on the good wishes from me and from the rest of the House—and I mean from all political parties.
I also want to address a few words to the Minister for Borders and Immigration. When I tried to praise him this morning, he felt that it was a precursor to my then having a go at him, but on the issue that we have engaged with most recently—the Gurkhas—I must say that the Select Committee, and, indeed, the whole House is grateful for his handling of that particular aspect of immigration policy. We know that this is a difficult policy area and we understood where the Government were coming from.
The House made its views known and the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box before the House rose that evening to ask the Select Committee and Parliament to engage in a discussion about how to resolve the issue. It seemed to me unusual that a Minister was prepared to start that engagement process at such short notice, and he was absolutely true to his word. His officials and those of the Ministry of Defence met the Committee and Ms Lumley and the process started. Within a very short time, a Select Committee report was issued. I know that the Minister is not going to repeat this every time we write a Select Committee report, but on this occasion, he accepted our findings in full within 48 hours.
I would like to emphasise to the Minister that that sort of can-do attitude is precisely what we would like to see adopted for immigration policy. I believe that he still has it in him—I am making a prediction here and I stress that the Prime Minister will not be consulting me about the reshuffle—and I very much hope that he will still be in the same job this time next week. Saying that may well have damned his career and the Prime Minister, who I am sure is watching these proceedings, may well want to move him on. The Minister has made a very good start. He has been open, honest and transparent, as he was with the Select Committee this morning. He has admitted the existence of real problems in, previously, the immigration and nationality directorate and, now, the Border and Immigration Agency. He has set out his stall and made clear the ways in which he believes these matters can be resolved.
The Minister and I will still disagree about the backlog. I still believe that when he finishes his job, whenever that will be—I hope that it will be many months and years from now—he will be judged by me, and by colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who have been in the House for longer than I have, on the basis of the length of the backlog. At the moment, I can give him only five out of 10 in that respect.
Jeremy Corbyn:
Does my right hon. Friend share my experience of being inundated with visitors to the advice bureau who have been told that they must wait another two years before their backlog cases can be dealt with? Many people who come to see us are absolutely desperate
to know what will happen to their lives. Some have been waiting five years, 10 years or even longer. That is not a decent way in which to treat anyone.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If Lin Homer did not exist to sign the letters, we would have to invent her. A letter from the chief executive will arrive after the busy surgery on a Friday, saying that it will take two years to resolve these matters. When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box and agreed to resolve the issue of the Gurkhas within a very short time, there was the political will and the can-do attitude. All cases would be dealt with by the end of May, and all pre-1997 cases would be dealt with within two years.
All Members, in all parts of the House, have received the famous Lin Homer letter that says “Don’t write to us, because we are resolving it.” “When are you resolving it?” “In two years’ time.” That is the fundamental problem of the way in which the immigration system has developed over the past 20 years—certainly from the moment when I entered the House. Yes, it has improved because the backlog has been reduced, but there is still a backlog which could have been cleared, at least in the last 12 years, if the Government had wanted to clear it. I know that a lot of resources have been devoted to dealing with the backlog, but I fear that the Bill will create a bigger backlog. I fear that people will to be made to jump through even more hoops in order to gain citizenship and stay in the country, and that the path to citizenship will be littered with more obstacles and hurdles.
I understand perfectly well why the Government, and Parliament, have decided to take this action. That is why I shall vote for the Bill, as I have voted for every other immigration Bill that the Government have presented in the last eight years. Although it will mean that genuine people must wait longer, we will support the Government’s action. However, there is a deal. We will take the harsh medicine, but in return for what we are doing—supporting a Bill that I would never support if this were a Conservative Government and I were a Labour Back Bencher: we would be jumping up every five minutes objecting to what the Conservatives were doing—the Minister must deliver the proper, effective and efficient immigration system which has still not been delivered by the Government after 12 years.
Mr. Heath: I suppose that I should admire the right hon. Gentleman’s loyalty in supporting all those Bills, but does he not agree that it would be far better if the Home Office could desist for just one year from producing nationality and immigration Bills, and instead get on with managing the Department as effectively as possible in order to make it run properly?
Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If only we could be guaranteed that—but there is clearly a whole section of the Home Office that needs legislation so that Ministers are kept busy.
When the Minister has been confirmed in his position—I fully support that, and will be happy to write a recommendation letter to the Prime Minister—he should relocate himself to Croydon. He should go there on Monday—I hope that Monday will not be too late—with all the clever, bright people whom he has brought to meetings on the Gurkhas and to meet the Select Committee, and he should sit there until the backlog is cleared. With ministerial will, he can do it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |