Mr.
Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend add to those figures the
number of under-18s in the same family? That would be relevant. There
are cases involving three or four people from the same
family.
Mr.
Woolas: If that figure is not there, it should be. I can
see exactly the point of that. If we look at the case, the children are
detained because of the parent. The alternative policy, which as my
hon. Friend knows we have tried elsewhere, is to separate the child
from the parent, which, in practice, is normally the mother. That is
equally or perhaps more undesirable, certainly from the child’s
point of view. That is implicit in what I have said, and so I accept
that point of
view. I
will not put forward arguments about the drafting of the clause and so
on. I make those commitments to the Committee and will repeat them on
Report if that is desirable, and we can move on and have a proper
debate.
Damian
Green: May I clear up what the process is? Is the Minister
saying that he will table an amendment on Report that would have that
effect and that he would therefore like me to withdraw the
amendment?
Mr.
Woolas: I believe that the desirable way forward is
for the Committee to accept my assurances that we will do that. It is
not appropriate for such a specific expectation to be in the Bill. I
was simply asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment in the
light of my assurances. I do not want him, other Committee members or
you, Mr Gale, to think that this is just a way of getting over an
awkward amendment; it is not. The amendment is not awkward, it is
something that we are committed to. I commit to repeating that
commitment on Report, by which time I will have further information on
the publication dates and the
plans.
Damian
Green: I am grateful for the Minister’s positive
response. In a sense, there is nothing more to say. I am glad that the
Government have done that. It is overdue and welcome, and we are
pleased to have achieved it. I can assure the Minister that the
quarterly statistics are read avidly by some of us for many days after
they come out because they are full of exciting illumination. On the
basis of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
57 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
58 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
59Extent Amendment
made: 33, in clause
59, page 46, line 31, leave out
‘55’ and insert
‘[Transfer of immigration or
nationality judicial review applications]’.
—(Mr. Woolas.) This
amendment is consequent on amendment
NC4. Clause
59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
60Commencement Amendments
made: 34, in
clause 60, page 47, line 1, leave
out ‘51 (entry otherwise than by sea or air: immigration
control)’ and insert ‘[Common Travel Area] (Common Travel
Area)’ This amendment
is consequent on amendment
NC3. Amendment
35, in clause
60, page 47, line 8, leave out
‘55 (fresh claim applications)’ and insert
‘[Transfer of immigration or
nationality judicial review applications] (transfer of immigration or
nationality judicial review applications)’.
—(Mr.
Woolas.) This amendment
is consequent on amendment
NC4.
Damian
Green: I beg to move amendment 61, in
clause 60, page 47, line 35, at
end add— ‘(12) If any part
of this Act has not come into force within two years of it receiving
Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament the
reasons.’.
I do not often
table amendments to a commencement clause, but I thought that it was
worth doing so in this instance. I have been looking back at the record
of the implementation of the multitude of immigration Bills that have
been introduced. By my analysis there have been eight. The spokesman
for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne),
always makes it nine; we have never quite reconciled the numbers. I
think that this is the third such Bill that I have had to deal with. I
am sorry to weary the House with some detail, but it is worth
doing.
If one goes
back to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, sections 98 to
117, 125, 130 to 137 and 146 have not yet been commenced. One might
argue that that is fair enough as that Act was only passed last year.
However, going back to the UK Borders Act 2007, sections 19, 24, 32 to
38 in part and 57 have not yet been implemented. Whole shoals of the
Identity Cards Act 2006, which had a significant effect on
immigration, have not yet been commenced—thank God. With a
following wind and a sensible new Home Secretary, they never will
be.
Going back
even further, section 16 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of
Claimants) Act 2004 has not yet been implemented. I have four lines on
the sections of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that
have not been introduced. I will not weary the House with details, but
the second half of that Act just was not implemented at all; sections
44 to 47, 51, 53 and 124 have not yet been implemented. One can go back
even further to Acts dating back to the last century and find parts
that have not been
implemented. That
tells us that the Government are very keen to rush in a new immigration
Bill every session. However, at some stage after the House has
scrutinised it but before anything happens in the real world, they
decide not to implement large parts of it. So I suppose that I am
seeking some assurance from the Minister that he is absolutely sure
that everything that we are discussing and passing in this Bill will
actually happen in the real world, because all the evidence of previous
Home Office immigration Bills is that that is not the case. I want to
know exactly how much time of the Committee and the House is being
wasted in discussing and passing legislation that is destined never to
achieve anything.
Mr.
Woolas: We have a very unusual situation whereby the
Conservative spokesperson is urging the Government to implement their
Bills. So I welcome his support on that.
If you will
allow me, Mr. Gale, I want to reflect on the fact that, in
our debate on clause 39 as was, on the transitional arrangements, if
hon. Members were to get their way, the implementation date would be
put back, would it not? In some cases, I was urged—not in this
room, but elsewhere—to put the implementation back by several
decades. However,
let me try to address the hon. Gentleman’s serious point. There
was indeed a parliamentary question on this issue, which was put to the
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the
Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We commend the
hon. Gentleman on his research and for making this point. As I said at
the start of our consideration, I am in favour of post-legislative
scrutiny;
I think that the House should do that and I believe that the public
would respect us more if we did look at laws after they are
passed. The answer to
the hon. Gentleman’s question is that 18 of the substantive
provisions of the Bill, if both Houses agree to it, will come into
force by order. That includes those provisions in part 2, including
earned citizenship, provisions on a common travel area, the judicial
review clause and the children’s duty.
Let me
reassure you, Mr. Gale, and the Committee that the
Government have every intention of implementing everything in the Bill
within the next two years. A total of 43 clauses, including provisions
in part 1 on border functions, and clause 52 on restriction on studies,
come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Part 1 is essential as it
will allow for the formal transfer to UKBA of about 4,500 officers who
are currently employed by HMRC, to enable the full integration of
customs and immigration work at the border. All the other provisions in
the Bill will begin implementation by the end of
2010. 6.15
pm The
only exception where I cannot assure the Committee relates to clause
54, because we remain committed to consulting Scottish Ministers in
advance of laying any orders and I will not prejudge those
conversations by announcing the implementation date now. I take the
hon. Gentleman’s point but do not think that you, Mr.
Gale, would allow me to answer all the questions he asked, which are
outside the scope of the amendment and the Bill. I assure him, however,
that the Bill, which is small, modest and perfectly formed, will fit
together like a jigsaw puzzle with the simplification Bill, which will
come later.
I wish that
the hon. Member for Ashford, who criticised us for bringing forward
legislation to the House, would co-operate with us in getting more
timetabling for immigration Bills so that we did not have to keep
coming back. If we get that co-operation, he will not be able to use
the amendment when we debate the simplification Bill. That apart, I
hope I have convinced him that my timetable for implementation of the
Bill, which is what we are discussing, is sure, on track and
necessary.
Damian
Green: I assure the Minister with great sincerity that one
thing I do not criticise the Government for is being backward in
bringing forward immigration legislation. I have been making the point
for some years that there is too much legislation and not enough
enforcement, and too much of the legislation is defective. I adduce in
evidence the fact that the Government, after passing their own
legislation, clearly decide that large chunks of it are defective,
because otherwise they would put it into practice. I think I have made
my point and so beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
61Short
title Amendment
made: 36, in
clause 61, page 47, line 38, leave
out subsection (2).—(Mr. Woolas.)
This amendment
leaves out the common-form provision inserted by the House of Lords at
Third Reading to avoid infringing the financial privileges of the House
of
Commons. Clause
61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
ScheduleRepeals Amendment
proposed: 37, in schedule,
page 48, line 34, at end
insert— ‘Immigration
Act 1971
(c. 77) | In
section 11(2), in paragraphs (a) and (b), the words “or
elsewhere in the common travel
area”.’. |
—(Mr.
Woolas.) This amendment is
consequent on amendment
NC3. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
7.
Division
No.
5] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Amendment
37 agreed
to. Amendment
proposed: 38, in
schedule, page 49, line 3, at end
insert— ‘Judicature
(Northern Ireland) Act 1978
(c. 23) | Section
25A(7). | Supreme
Court Act 1981
(c. 54) | Section
31A(7). | Tribunals,
Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
(c. 15) | Section
20(5).’.—(Mr.
Woolas.) |
This
amendment is consequent on amendment
NC4. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
7.
Division
No.
6] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Amendment
38 agreed
to. Question
put, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the
Bill. Question
agreed
to. Schedule
1, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Steve
McCabe.) 6.21
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 18 June at Nine
o’clock.
|
