Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

House of Commons, 16 November 2005.

Clause 4 — Entry Clearance

Clause 9 — Abandonment of Appeal

Clause 14 — Penalty

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 28, after 'employ', insert

'for more than 15 hours in any one week'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 9, in page 6, line 31 [Clause 14], leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 36.

No. 10, in page 6, line 40 [Clause 14], leave out from 'he' to end of line 41 and insert

'took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.'.

No. 11, in page 7, line 10 [Clause 14], leave out '14' and insert '28'.

No. 12, in page 7, line 14 [Clause 14], at end insert—

'(g) state the steps which an employer must take to avoid a further breach in relation to any employee.'.

No. 13, in page 7, line 25 [Clause 14], leave out paragraph (e).

No. 14, in page 7, line 37 [Clause 15], leave out paragraph (c).

No. 15, in page 8, line 17 [Clause 16], at end insert—

'(d) make such orders as to costs as it deems appropriate.'.

No. 16, in page 10, line 18, leave out Clause 21.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We move on to the part of the Bill that deals with rights and duties of employers, and in particular to clause 14, which imposes the somewhat novel concept of a civil penalty on a person who employs a person subject to some immigration control. It is in connection with the general theme of the civil penalty that I introduce amendments Nos. 8 to 16. I hope that we will be permitted to divide the House on amendment No. 10 at the appropriate moment. My remaining amendments are essentially probing measures.

The problem of illegal working is acute. The strict liability criminal offence introduced by section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 dealt with it to some extent, but the problem with that legislation is that very few prosecutions have occurred. It is well known that hundreds of thousands of people are probably working illegally, but only 29 people have been prosecuted under the 1996 Act since 1997, and only eight or nine of them were found guilty.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

Illegal immigrants working in the Kettering constituency are a serious problem. I have tabled written questions to the Home Office, the answers to which revealed that no employers have been prosecuted in Kettering for employing illegal workers.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. I visited his constituency some months ago, so I know that the matter, which he takes particularly seriously on behalf of his law-abiding constituents, is a problem in his area. I am not surprised to learn that no one has been prosecuted. As a general principle, it is all very well to introduce new criminal penalties, but the problem is often the lack of enforcement of the existing law.

The civil penalty introduced by clause 14 is a new concept, but I am troubled by the fact that we know very little about the Secretary of State's plans. For example, the minimum and maximum penalties are not stated in the Bill. I have heard a rumour that the maximum per worker will be £2,500, although perhaps the Minister will confirm that figure in due course. Maximum fines and penalties are always set out in criminal statute, so it is disappointing not to have that information. Likewise, the contents of the penalty notice referred to in clause 14 are left for us to guess at. The documents that employers must see and the steps that they must take are, again, not specified, and they will be decided later.

The Government promised to consult employers' groups and small businesses during the passage of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will give us the result of those consultations in his response.

Nobody knows how many illegal immigrants are in this country and how many of them are working, but it is a fair conjecture that if there are, as is generally agreed, well in excess of 500,000 illegal immigrants, it is very likely that a great number of them are working illegally. Does the Minister have any idea how many such persons are working illegally in this country?

Will the Minister specifically deal with enforcement of the civil penalty? How will it be enforced in practice and by whom? Will it be a matter for the police, local authorities or Home Office officials? Who will be tasked, which is not a word that I like, with enforcement? It is all very well to introduce a civil penalty, but enforcement is a critical point.

The Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee has had something to say over the past few years about illegal working, which it has pointed out can have a particularly pernicious effect on community relations and an unfair impact on the legally employed work force. The Committee has been critical of the Government for their failure to prosecute under the criminal sanctions for employing illegal workers. If the criminal law has not worked, what is so magical about the new civil penalty?

Amendment No. 8 would insert the words

"for more than 15 hours in any one week".

It is intended to draw to the Minister's attention the problem that may arise for employers in relation to part-time or seasonal employees or one-off workers who do a particular job that may last only a day but are nevertheless employed. Short-term working in catering and the tourism industry should also be addressed positively by the Minister when he responds.

I have a very good friend called Philip Walters, who lives in Dorset and is much involved in local life there. He reports to me that in his county—I think that it is the same throughout the country—a significant number of people are employed by farmers on very short-term contracts. For example, strawberry pickers may be employed for only one day and paid food for their troubles. Farmers are completely reliant upon that kind of labour. It would be unfair of the Government to expect every farmer to ask every strawberry picker for the appropriate identity documents, employment documents, and so on, and to keep photocopies.

My concern is mainly on behalf of individual employers, not so much companies. I am worried that innocent individuals will be caught—people who employ gardeners and cleaners who work for perhaps no more than 10 hours a week at the most. I put 15 hours in my amendment because I thought that that was reasonable and would enable the Minister to respond fully on the issue of part-time workers. Such individuals face a penalty under the clause—there is no doubt about that. Is it right to impose on an individual who employs one or more persons for fewer than 15 hours a week the bureaucracy, red tape and burdens that we find in clause 14, leaving them, quite unnecessarily, with penalties and notices to pay?

Hotels, restaurants and other entertainment enterprises are often completely reliant on taking full advantage of seasonal peaks in demand. This measure may dramatically reduce their flexibility, which is one of the most significant advantages that small firms have over their larger competitors, and in effect punish those who experience an economic need for labour. The Government say that they support enterprise, small businesses, diversity and flexibility, but their failure to exempt part-time workers, in particular, could heap even more red tape on to businesses.

The Minister will tell us that he has consulted various bodies—and so have I. The end result is that I have received comments from several leading bodies that are very worried about the general problems that they will face. The CBI welcomes the clause on the criminal effects but says that

"civil penalties pose more problems than they create solutions"

and that if

"the primary aim of the measures in the bill is the prevention of abuse, it is correct to focus on those who offend wilfully and/or repeatedly."

I believe that there is force in what the CBI goes on to say:

"The introduction of civil penalties for negligent employers . . . is a distraction. We are concerned that the difficulty of taking enforcement actions against true rogue employers will lead to a perverse incentive to target legal firms who employ legitimate migrants and may make the occasional mistake. The introduction of civil penalties for negligent employers may present enforcement officers with an "easy win".

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an employer who is minded to employ people illegally will also be well disposed to the notion of hiding behind the veil of incorporation in its various guises, and that that would be exceptionally problematic in regard to recovering civil penalties?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—there is of course a corporate criminal offence set out in the Bill—and he might wish to develop it himself in the course of the debate.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, a much-respected body, also has concerns about the provisions. It has consulted businesses, and has registered on behalf of many of them concerns about the provision for a civil penalty. A problem that it has identified—perhaps the Minister will address it directly—is that the Government are almost asking employers to become

"'enforcers' of immigration control and that the threat of civil penalties as well as the requirement to repeatedly check documents will act as a disincentive to employers hiring foreign nationals, including those who are 'documented' and ethnic minorities."

So a lot of genuine people who have a full right to work could find themselves—for completely understandable reasons—accidentally discriminated against. They would therefore suffer as a result. When the Minister tells us about his consultations with the CBI and other business organisations, I am sure that he will be able to address those concerns.

The provisions would result in an even greater burden being placed on smaller businesses, which should not be expected to act as a continuing watchdog on behalf of the Government. Amendment No. 8 sets out an exemption for the employers of part-time workers. Its purpose is to ask the Minister please to be very cautious before placing unnecessary burdens on small employers who employ people part-time or just for one-off jobs, because they would be covered by the civil penalty.

Amendment No. 9 is a probing amendment that proposes to leave out clause 14(1)(b). This proposal would not place quite such a burden on the employer as the existing one. The employer would be subject to a penalty if he employed someone who had not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK, but would not face a civil penalty if, for example, the person whom he had employed had leave but it had expired and there was a possibility of its being renewed. The Minister may remember that this issue was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who always takes a great interest in these matters. The Government's response at that time, though helpful in part, was incomplete. That links up with my point on that amendment involving the nature of the documentation, which the employer will have to read and understand. Some of those documents are complex.

I am going to say to the Minister something that may trouble him a little. I have read that those employers who are concerned that the penalty provision might impact on them can phone an employers' helpline—a hotline of sorts for employers—to get the fullest possible advice as to what they should and should not do, and how they should approach individual employment cases. The parallel with the immigration hotline, which is used by many of my hon. Friends and Members across the House to get answers on immigration matters, is interesting. I want the Minister to tell us in his winding-up speech whether the employers' helpline—or it is a hotline?—exists. Will he give us its telephone number? I have a number in front of me, but something tells me that it might be more appropriate for him to talk to us about this, just in case I have the wrong one. I think there is such a helpline and that it will be useful for employers.

Amendment No. 10 is the one about which it is fair to say I feel the strongest. Clause 14(3) says:

"An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements".

Amendment No. 10 would introduce a few words giving the employer an excuse if he

"took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements".

As we are hammering employers under this provision, if they have taken reasonable steps, they should have some form of excuse. That is the principal amendment to which I shall speak. It is, I think, linked with amendment No. 12.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) tabled a not dissimilar amendment in Committee, hoping thereby to ease the position of the innocent employer who may have made an innocent mistake. It was a pro-business amendment, so we were sorry, but not surprised, that the Government did not take it on board at that stage; nor have they tabled their own amendment today to ameliorate the position of employers. In tabling that amendment, my hon. Friend expressed his concern—and that of others, including the CBI—about that burden.

In Committee, the Minister indicated that the clause would be watered down. He did not use those words, but suggested that it would be shown to be more employer friendly by a code of practice, which would apparently offer a more lenient approach to first-time transgressors. I do not know exactly what that means. If first-time transgressors are not to be penalised under this civil measure, let us hear it. If the Minister will have discretion not to penalise first-time transgressors, employers have no reason to be comfortable, because they simply will not know their fate. I hope the Minister can respond on that point.

Prescribed requirements, which are not defined although the employer has to comply with them, mean inspection of documents. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the immigration world realises that we are now entering a minefield. Picture yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any of us here, running a small business taking on labour. Then, one asks to see certain documents. Bearing in mind that many documents that are not real seem to pass the test with our immigration officials and those at airports, I do not see how the innocent employer will spot them. Did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a piece of cake in Lithuania to wander along and buy yourself a Lithuanian passport, which gives you everything that you need to come into this country? Did you know that it is a piece of cake in Italy and Greece—I hasten to say that I have not done it, but I know it to be true—to get hold of a Greek or Italian identity card and wander into this country on that basis? Finally, I am not sure that employers are expected to know that there is a terrific trade of Brazilians entering Portugal and getting hold quite easily of Portuguese identity and other documents, and then wandering around the EU, not to mention this country. The notion that expertise must be put into the mind of the employer is illusory.

My amendment No. 11 deals with a separate issue, and I hope that I have expressed fairly and opened up a debate on the burdens on employers, the concerns of business and the lack of detail that we have had so far. The clause states that a penalty notice must "specify a date". The date specified in the notice—goodness knows who sends it or has found out that an employer has an illegal migrant as an employee—is meant to be

"at least 14 days after the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is given, before which the penalty must be paid".

The amendment changes that from 14 days to 28 days. It is quite important—I know that the Minister is taking the point on board—that a reasonable period is given to the employer to pay the penalty. We do not know what the penalty will be, and have no idea who will judge how much it will be. If it is a Home Office official who decides on the penalty, such an official will have no idea about an employer's wealth, means or ability to pay and will, I presume, just pick a figure out of the air, which seems idiotic. It seems right, particularly as people are sometimes away for two or three weeks, that a reasonable period of grace should be given for the employer to pay the penalty.

On the question of the financial means of the person in receipt of a penalty, I see nothing in the Bill to tell me that the level of the penalty will be adjusted according to the means of the person who must pay it. In our courts, however, defendants' means are carefully examined—they carefully fill in a form about whether they are on benefits or X pounds a week. As a result, the courts set the fine at a level compatible with the defendant's means. Where is that provision in the Bill, and where is the prospect of the Minister allowing a little more time? If one is fined in a magistrates court, one is invariably given, if one asks for it, 28 days to pay. That is why I have suggested that 28 days be allowed in relation to the penalty notice.

Amendment No. 12 follows on from my amendment No. 10 and again seeks to lessen the burden on the employer.

Amendment No. 13 asks us to leave out paragraph (e), which requires

"action to be taken at specified intervals or on specified occasions during the course of employment."

Not only will a burden be placed on an employer at the beginning of the employment, when he must inspect and deal with certain documents, but he will be required to do the same

"at specified intervals or on specified occasions during the course of employment."

Neither the specified intervals nor the specified occasions are quantified. We have had informal guidance from Ministers, but now that we have reached the Report stage, it would be helpful if this Minister went into more detail.

Does the Minister think that the penalty clause is absolutely necessary? Existing legislation covers the employment of persons and the need to examine their documents. Will he comment on the workings of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which require agencies that supply workers to carry out checks to confirm workers' identities? Is that invariably done, what pitfalls exist, and have any measures been taken against agencies that have not dealt with the matter properly?

Will the Minister also comment on the workings of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which was intended to protect workers in the agriculture and shellfish sectors by requiring labour providers to register and apply for licences to act as gangmasters? Given that plenty of checks and regulations are already in force, and given that although there are probably 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 illegal workers in the country—no one can gainsay that—only about 20 have been prosecuted in the last eight years, one wonders whether the real problem is that of enforcing existing law properly.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to omit clause 15(3)(c). It is merely a probing amendment. Paragraph (c) says that a notice of objection must be given "in the prescribed manner". If someone wished to object to a civil penalty, what would the "prescribed manner" be? The question troubles me a bit, because it raises the possibility that a notice would be deemed faulty because it had not been given in the prescribed manner. If a defendant wishes to appeal against a conviction or sentence in court, he or she is not required to provide a notice of appeal in a prescribed manner; it is necessary merely to file the notice. If it is on the back of an envelope and reads "I wish to appeal against the sentence because I thought it was very tough", that is good enough.

Amendment No. 15 relates to appeal against the penalty. I thought for a moment that the Minister was asking me to give way, but it seems that he is not— [Interruption.] I am told that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has just woken up. It is good to see him in his place.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not woken up. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for the last 30 minutes, as has the whole House. I just wish he would get on with it, as the business is guillotined.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I do not think that that is a point of order for the Chair, but I can confirm what the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has said.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I hesitate to address the hon. Member for Leicester, East as Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he seems to be instructing me to move at a pace that suits him. Many of us have genuinely fallen asleep in the Chamber during his deliberations since 1983.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

The hon. Gentleman will not fall asleep when I start speaking.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

No.

I would like to insert under amendment No. 15 a provision whereby, following an appeal, a court can make an order as to costs. That is important. Can a court hearing an appeal make an order for costs at present under this Bill? If the appeal is vexatious and rubbish, it is undoubtedly sensible for the court to order costs against the appellant. However, if the appeal is full of merit and the Secretary of State has behaved disgracefully, it seems proper that the court can order costs against the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will respond on that matter.

I had the feeling that the hon. Member for Leicester, East was in the Chamber to hear my speech, but I have suddenly realised that he is here only to make his own.

Amendment No. 16 is a probing amendment, by which I seek to omit clause 21. I ask the Minister kindly to tell us a little more about the position of a body corporate and the criminal offence that applies in relation to a body corporate. We are anxious to know who would be prosecuted. Take the case, for example—I mentioned it in Committee—of a club. A club run by its members is capable of being criminally prosecuted under this measure. That is entirely different from a big organisation. It is voluntary for a start. Take a sports club or a small business where there are four partners, one of whom is a junior partner who has some responsibility for an aspect of the employment but no authority to overrule the other partners, who take a particular view about the employment of the individual concerned. I am anxious that the net in criminal terms does not extend to cover too many people.

Those are my amendments. The Minister has much to justify. I am hopeful that he will accept amendment No. 10, which is the one that we most want to test the opinion of the House on. Among my other amendments, I hope that he will be kind enough at least to agree that those who have a penalty imposed on them should get 28 days, rather than 14.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I came into the Chamber determined to vote with the Opposition on amendment No. 8 but, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I have decided to vote with the Government because they do have a case and there are concerns about that amendment. I am certain that, with the length of time that he has taken to put his views forward, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with those concerns. Let me raise my concerns in a much shorter time to give other right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to put their points to the Minister.

I am concerned about these proposals because they will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minority community. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that the measure will create a burden on small businesses when they have to keep checking immigration documents. It will also create a burden on the immigration service and the police. We have had legislation on immigration, asylum and nationality where the Government have told us, in good faith, that they felt that it would deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but sadly that has not happened. We are again legislating because we think that we will solve the problem, but we could end up not solving it and just creating greater burdens.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

The hon. Gentleman is correct to identify that the immigration service does not want to have more rules and regulations to enforce. Is not it the case that the service is already overstretched and cannot enforce its existing powers?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I agree. There are more than 220,000 cases that the service has not dealt with. I went to visit the Arnhem centre in Leicester last Friday, where I looked at the appeals that come from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is such a huge burden on the IND, despite the appointment of the new director general, Lin Homer, whom I wish well. An extra burden of this kind will not help the system. After all, that is exactly what the Government said when they introduced—I think by regulation, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the new certificates of marriage that people had to obtain from the Home Office in order to go to the registry office to get married. At the time, we were told that the purpose was to make the system clearer. In fact, there is still a huge delay for people trying to get those certificates from the Home Office because there is a backlog. The purpose—the good purpose—for which they were introduced has not been realised because of the administrative problems created.

First, I seek an assurance from the Minister that the provision will not create additional burdens, requiring additional resources, for the already overstretched immigration and nationality directorate. Secondly, to reiterate a good point that was made in an over-lengthy way by the hon. Member for Woking, what about consultation? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the CBI and employers organisations for small businesses, but what consultation has there been with communities, particularly with those who will be affected by what is happening?

Has the Minister sought the views of the Commission for Racial Equality, which has been very clear in the statements it has made to Members of the House this week? I quote:

"The CRE view is that civil penalties and repeat checks on certain employees subject to immigration control is not in the spirit of the Race Relations legislation, could be divisive within workforces, stigmatise workers, and potentially damage good race relations. We fear that the latest proposals may cause confusion, misunderstanding, and further cases of discrimination."

The very body set up to deal with issues of discrimination is saying to the Government that before the measure is passed they should pause and consider what is being proposed, so it is important for the Minister to tell the House which organisations and community groups have been consulted and what research his Department has done.

We know that proposals do not instantly emerge from the mind of the Home Secretary or the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and lead to immediate legislation. Ministers have had time to think about the proposals as the issue has been central to what the Government have been attempting to do for the past eight years. What is the evidence to support the measure? What information can the Minister give the House about that?

My final point is about the need to ensure that people who are here illegally and readily own up to it are given some sort of decision about their status. Occasionally, although I am not saying that it happens often, people who have lived in this country illegally for a long time come to my constituency surgery, as I am sure they do to the surgeries of other Members, and admit that they have been in the country illegally. Some have had an extended holiday. A gentleman who came to see me only last week came for a holiday 10 years ago on a visitor's visa. He is still here, he has had three children and he is working illegally, but he wants to come clean. He wants to make the Home Office aware of the position, although I am not sure whether he wants an amnesty. My job as MP is to stand in his shoes and write to the appropriate Minister or officials. I have done that—as I have done for a number of people who have come to my surgery and want to admit to being here illegally. They want their status clarified, but the delay in dealing with their cases adds to the backlog and the wider delay in the system.

We are all trying to find people who are working here illegally so that we can bring them to justice, and so that they can regularise their stay and either make an application to remain on some basis or leave the country and make an application to come back. We need assurances from the Minister that his staff that resources in the Home Office are sufficient to cope with the applications when they are made.

If the Minister can reassure me on those three points, I will happily vote with the Government on this measure. I remain worried, however, that in the 18 years during which I have been a Member of the House we have had 10 Bills on immigration, asylum and nationality. Every Government, of every hue, have said that the next piece of legislation will solve the problem, but that has not happened. I hope that the Minister is confident that these proposals will make a difference to the Government's immigration policy.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I shall not detain the House because, ever the optimist, I remain hopeful that we might still get to the final group of amendments, which I consider to be very important. However, I want to share a few thoughts about illegal working, and I commend the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) for tabling these amendments. They allow us to discuss and place on the record some of our concerns about what is a real problem in many sectors of modern commerce and industry. Illegal working is a problem for all of us. It has a pernicious effect on community relations and leaves many people in different industries without proper protection or remuneration. If it is allowed to flourish, it places those who play by the rules at a real disadvantage.

The hon. Member for Woking said that most of his amendments are probing, and I think that that approach is correct, but he added that he wanted to press amendment No. 10 to a vote. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that his resolution to support him had been tested, but mine has not. I remain resolute and I will support the amendment in a Division. Yet again, part of the reassurance offered by the Government is that a code of conduct will be put in place, but so far I am not aware that one has been produced. The Government say something similar increasingly often, but such statements provide no reassurance. Effectively, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

The concept of civil penalties is superficially attractive, although I remain worried about some of the enforcement problems. What is the position of bodies corporate in relation to partnerships? In Scots law, partners are deemed to be jointly and severally liable, but it seems to me that the Bill could cause real injustice in that regard.

Moreover, the people most likely to be caught and to end up paying are those small business men or sole traders who have made some error that has brought them within the jurisdiction of the civil penalty scheme. However, they will not necessarily be the real villains of the piece. The real villains will find a means of escape—no doubt without much difficulty—through devices such as the veil of incorporation. I am therefore worried that the proposed scheme will not tackle the mischief.

Amendment No. 10 would reduce the test for establishing a defence and require traders to show that they had taken "reasonable steps" to comply with employment requirements. That seems sensible, and Liberal Democrat Members support it.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) with great interest. He and I entered the House at the same time and in our early days here worked together in the Home Affairs Committee. We looked at some of these matters then, and few of us can match his experience, given the ethnic make-up of his constituency and the many cases with which he has to deal. I am sure that what he said will have been of great value to the House.

I want to deal with some of the issues that are under consideration in the Council of Europe's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, to which I was appointed earlier this year. They go right to the heart of the difficult question of the employment of irregular migrants. I concluded that what the Government propose in clauses 14 to 21—which the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) address—namely, stronger criminal sanctions against employers who give work to irregular or illegal migrants, seems significantly out of step with the work of the Migration Committee and the advice it has received on future migration and employment trends.

As colleagues who follow economic trends will be aware, Alan Greenspan estimated recently that there may be between 10 million and 11 million irregular migrants in work in the USA, without whom, he said, the performance of the US economy would be adversely affected, particularly in relation to the rate of inflation. I understand that it is two years since any prosecutions were pressed against employers in the USA.

We know that irregular migrants are in work in the UK—the hon. Member for Leicester, East gave us one example. The clandestine nature of their employment can and does on occasion call into question the morality and ethical behaviour of their employers. On the other hand, some employers may unwittingly employ irregular migrants, especially through subcontractors in the agricultural sector or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, migrants who used false papers.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If an employer is going through a busy period and needs to fill a vacancy, when people apply for the job the first question he asks is not, "Can I have a look at your passport?", but, "Are you able to do this job?" That is why people slip through.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Indeed. In the hon. Gentleman's community, he may know that the person in question has a wife and children to support, and I want to touch on the issue of the rights of a person in that situation.

For the reasons that I have given, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking is entirely right to try to amend the Bill as he proposes. It would be wholly wrong for us to treat the unscrupulous employer and the unwitting employer in exactly the same way, as the Bill would do. Yes, there is discretion about whether prosecutions are brought and there is discretion in the court, but if we are serious about regularising the position of illegal migrants, which is really what the hon. Member for Leicester, East was saying in his third point, it is counter-productive to penalise the very people who are most likely to know or learn about the irregularities and do something to address them.If our economy benefits from the employment of irregular migrants, we need to ask whether the prosecution of employers is justified, beyond their failure to meet employment laws and obligations. In the longer term, however, it is much more important for the House to address the interests of the migrants themselves.

I listened with interest to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality when he introduced new clause 2 and discussed the question of there being no minimum wage for people in detention centres who work. He made his point extremely well; the questions relating to the right level of pay were interesting. He pointed out that people in detention centres have a choice about whether to work, but that if they choose to work they are not paid the minimum wage. I see his point of view, but those people are nevertheless irregular migrants—that is why they are in detention—yet they are being given the choice and the right to work.

It may surprise some colleagues, as it certainly surprised me when the document arrived in my bundle of papers, that the Migration Committee is considering a report on the human rights of irregular migrants, which might include the right to work, or at least to accept employment. That is an extremely challenging concept. I have an open mind on the issue.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) serves on the Migration Committee with me, and we have had quite a good exchange of views on what many colleagues on both sides of the House would find a challenging concept. However, we must all address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. If someone with a wife and children has lived in this country for 10 years but is here illegally because he overstayed his holiday and is in a job, does he have a right to work or not? That is the question. People say no, but the very fact that that question is on the agenda indicates the direction of thinking on this policy.

The Migration Committee has been given three different academic studies on the European convention on human rights, all of which conclude that irregular migrants must have some kind of rights. The better option is to regularise migrant workers because, without them, the long-term economic future of Europe, let alone this country, is in question. However, that is a debate for another day.

All I would say is that if the rights of irregular migrants are as uncertain as many hon. Members and I think, we ought seriously to consider the extent to which the law—which is what the amendment is about—seeks to penalise, including by imprisonment, employers who offer work to irregular migrants, especially in circumstances where the employer has unwittingly employed such persons. Amendment No. 10, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, is entirely reasonable in those circumstances, and it would greatly strengthen and improve the Bill if the Government were to accept it.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

My constituents would not want the opportunity of debating these amendments to pass without my mentioning the very serious and growing problem of working by illegal immigrants in and around Kettering—a issue that I have raised with the Home Office in a number of written questions. I share the scepticism expressed by Labour Members about the need to introduce new rules and regulations without the enforcement of the current rules and regulations being nearly effective enough.

The immigrant community in Kettering is not large. Perhaps 500 or so mainly Sikh people represent a long-established and well-respected minority ethnic community in Kettering. However, there is growing disquiet about the increasing number of illegal immigrants, many from the Indian subcontinent, who are finding their way to Kettering to work illegally in many of the local establishments. There is a well-established, if tortuous, route to gaining illegal entry into this country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) very graciously came to Kettering to hear the local residents' concerns about it.

I should like to take this opportunity to invite the Minister to come to my constituency to explain to members of the Sikh community, employers, police officers, immigration officers and others how the proposed changes in the Bill will address the growing problem of illegal working in Kettering. Having heard the debate so far, I am afraid that, on behalf of my constituents, I remain extremely sceptical about whether the Bill will tackle the problem in the way that it ought to.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I am grateful to hon. Members for the tone in which the debate has been conducted. We have had a proportionate and balanced debate on some very important issues. However, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, we have yet to consider some perhaps even more serious issues on Report, and it is right to devote as much time as possible to those issues. With the permission of the House, I will seek to deal not with every point that has been made, but with the substance of hon. Members' arguments and the assurances that they want.

With that in mind, I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—I know that he is a reasonable soul—that a vote on amendment No. 10 will not be needed. I genuinely believe that I can give him the assurance that he wants. The secondary legislation detailed in the Bill will achieve the effect of his amendment. I know that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland indicated that he would support the hon. Member for Woking in such a vote, but if the hon. Member for Woking is in the mood for doing deals, I can say that I may well be minded to accept amendment No. 11, the other amendment that he described as important because it would put more flexibility in the Bill. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and I are minded to say that the amendment is reasonable.

Before I deal with the substance of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, let me turn to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He talked about additional burdens on the immigration and nationality directorate and asked whether the enforcement activity would impact on other work. He also talked about consultation with the ethnic minority community about the impact of the measures and discussed the IND's ability to deal with overstayers.

We are bringing forward the measures because the regime introduced by the Conservative party has failed to fulfil its intended function. In the nine years since that regime was introduced, some 17 prosecutions have been brought, but that is not to say that the IND has not carried out many more operations than that to detect illegal working and that it has not detected many more illegal workers than that during the course of its activity. The situation demonstrates the inadequacy of the current offence.

The measures that we are introducing, especially the civil penalty scheme, will put a wider range of tools at the disposal of the IND, so it will not have to use such heavy-handed means to address the problem. The civil penalty scheme is a more measured and calibrated system through which the problem can be addressed without having to resort to criminal prosecutions in every instance. On my hon. Friend's point about consultation, a draft code of practice has been published to set out the steps that employers can take to ensure that they keep within race discrimination legislation.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I want the Minister to picture my constituency and areas such as East Park road and the Belgrave road. Every single person who is employed in every single factory on those roads is from the ethnic minority communities. Some are British born, some have acquired citizenship and others have indefinite leave. Does he accept that the measure will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minority community, and have an impact on those who are in this country legally because employers simply will not want to employ them?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

My hon. Friend is right to raise such serious issues. I do not know his constituency anything like as well as he does, but I would guess that the vast majority of those people are British born and British passport holders, so there will be no requirement for employers to check their documentation. The draft code was published in October and I would encourage him to read it.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

That is not the point. The Bill will allow those who have the power to go on fishing expeditions to find out which of those people are British citizens and individuals with indefinite leave—with the right to vote and work here—and which are not. The Bill will mean that people can start visiting factories and making checks, which will create more burdens.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The measures must be applied sensitively, which is why the draft code of practice sets out clearly the steps that should be followed to achieve that. The code makes what is acceptable clear to employers. We obviously want to ensure that there is consultation on the code of practice so that when it emerges in its final form, it will be a useful and practical document that will ensure that the scenario that my hon. Friend fears can be avoided. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the purpose of the measures is to deal with illegal working. The IND carries out illegal working operations now and will continue to do so; the clauses simply gives the IND proportionate tools to use against employers who fail to comply.

The main point made by the hon. Member for Woking relates to amendment No. 10, in which he requests that reference be made in the Bill to employers who take reasonable steps to comply with the legislation. As he knows, secondary legislation will be required to bring into effect the clauses on employment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the table in the draft code of practice that we have issued for the benefit of employers. He will see that it lays out clearly the practical steps that employers can take to ameliorate the size of any penalty. They can carry out a full check, which is defined, a partial check or no check at all. We have taken a balanced approach: the penalty varies in proportion to the extent to which an employer has taken steps to comply.

The hon. Gentleman will also see that it will be possible for a first-time offender who showed good will and carried out some partial checks to avoid a penalty on the first occasion of being found in breach. I genuinely believe that the secondary legislation to support the clauses will fulfil the purpose of amendment No. 10 by laying out clearly the practical steps that people can take, and I hope that it reassures the hon. Gentleman that first-time offenders will not be clobbered. The penalty will vary according to how many times the employer has breached the provisions and the extent to which the employer has taken steps to tackle the problem.

As I said, we are minded to accept amendment No. 11, which is sensible. It relates to the matters to be included in a civil penalty notice, specifically the Secretary of State's obligation under clause 14 to set a maximum period within which payment must be made. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the payment period specified in the notice from at least 14 days to at least 28 days. Clause 16 specifies that the period for bringing an appeal against a penalty will be 28 days and we intend that the maximum period for making objections under clause 15 will be the same. To accept amendment No. 11 is therefore logical.

Amendment No. 8 would exclude part-time workers from the scheme. That would not be sensible as it would undermine the principles of the scheme, weaken it, and create a potential loophole in the legislation. Employers could employ an illegal worker on a part-time basis for up to 15 hours a week having carried out no checks at all. I do not believe that that is really what the hon. Gentleman wants. It would not be sensible to accept the amendment, nor amendment No. 9, which would effectively exempt overstayers from the illegal working provisions. To exempt overstayers would be a counter-productive step that would undermine the scheme. The hon. Gentleman may know that a high proportion of the people who are picked up during operations tend to be overstayers. The hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. [Interruption.] He is chuntering away on the Opposition Front Bench about who will enforce the provision, and he has asked about robust documents. How about a national identity card? Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? That might be an easy way to ensure that employers could quickly verify whether or not the person had the right to work in the country. The hon. Gentleman might want to think about that before we conclude our deliberations.

Other, less crucial points have been raised and Members have been able to have their say. I note the support from the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for an amnesty for all illegal workers. I am not sure that that is the policy of the two contenders for the leadership of the Conservative party, but it is something that they might want to consider.

I took the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, principally in relation to amendment No. 16, which is about liability within a company, especially for the knowingly employing offence. If we accepted the amendment, that would weaken our position because we would have to revert to common law to try to ascertain who was ultimately liable. That would not be satisfactory. People in positions of responsibility within a company have to take responsibility to ensure that their house is in order. It would not be right to make the provisions vague so that people could have further room for manoeuvre to try to avoid their obligations.

I think that we should move on to the substantial matters that remain to be considered. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will be encouraged by what I have said and persuaded to accept my position on amendment No. 10, which will enable us to move straight on to the other matters that are to come before the House.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister, typically, has been extremely soothing and courteous. I was nearly lulled into accepting much of what he said. I thank him warmly for accepting amendment No. 11. My concerns remain, however, and I think that concerns remain on behalf of businesses, and small businesses in particular. It is my judgment that the defence of reasonableness should appear in the Bill, notwithstanding the Minister's kind words. It is because we feel so strongly about this matter and the need to put the provision in the Bill that we will put the issue to the vote.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 6, line 40, leave out from "he" to end of line 41 and insert

'took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Clause 31 — Passenger and Crew Information: Police Powers

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 14, line 38, after 'owner', insert ', captain'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 14, line 41, after 'owner', insert ', captain'.

No. 19, in page 15, line 17, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) may be made orally or in writing, but if made orally shall be confirmed in writing within 48 hours'.

No. 20, in page 15, line 19, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one month'.

No. 21, in clause 32, page 15, line 45, after 'owner', insert ', captain'.

No. 22, in clause 33, page 16, line 42, after 'section', insert '30'.

No. 23, in page 17, line 2, at end insert—

'(2A) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction on indictment in the Crown Court to a term of 2 years imprisonment or a fine or both.'.

No. 24, in clause 37, page 19, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 25, in page 19, line 11, leave out 'is likely to' and insert 'may'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I propose to make an extremely brief contribution on the amendments. I do not ask the Minister to deal with them at length, or at all, unless he feels it appropriate to do so, but I will be grateful if he is able to write to me.

Clauses 31, 32, 33 and 37 touch on important issues with regard to the sharing of information, which must be seen against the backdrop of the need for doing so in the more dangerous world that we currently face. The Minister is aware of our 100 per cent. support for Government attempts to ensure that our country is safe, and he must never be in any doubt about that.

The amendments are entirely probing. I tabled amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21 because I had hoped on several occasions in Committee to insert the word "captain" in relation to a ship.

Amendment No. 19 would enable information required by a constable to be provided orally rather than in writing as long as it is confirmed in writing within 48 hours. There would be no harm in that. I am sure that the Minister will feel free to accept that sensible amendment.

Amendment No. 22 suggests that a breach of clause 30, as well as of clauses 31 or 32, should be an offence. As the Bill stands, I cannot see that breaching clause 30 by not providing information to an immigration officer is an offence. Would such breaches be imprisonable offences?

Amendment No. 24 would strengthen the provision on the disclosure of information for security purposes so that a person "shall", instead of "may" disclose information. Amendment No. 25 would reduce the test to thinking that that information "may", instead of "is likely to" be of use for a specified purpose.

These are tidying amendments, none of which concerns matters of principle.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I shall try to be even briefer than the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).

I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21. It seems sensible that the captain of a ship, who is likely to be in charge, should be the person responsible.

On amendment No. 19, the hon. Gentleman is fully justified in saying that information could be given orally instead of in writing but put in writing within 48 hours.

We support amendment No. 20, which would reduce the specified period for the requirement from six months to one month.

I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman feels that amendment No. 22 is necessary. The provisions in clause 31(2) and (3) and clause 32(2) are restricted to police officers of superintendent or a higher level whereas under the amendment any immigration officer could be used.

We do not support amendment No. 23 but we do support amendments Nos. 24 and 25.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I hope that I shall be even more brief than the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech). I understand that there is no objection in principle to the e-borders regime that we are introducing, or to the security benefits that we believe will flow from it. The issues raised in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking are essentially operational questions that we can deal with, and I shall write to him and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington to give them clarification on the points that they have raised. We shall not accept the amendments, but I will clarify the reasons why in my letter. I ask the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw his amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I believe that several of my amendments have merit, but if I were to test the opinion of the House at this point, I would be in trouble with a number of people. However, I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have raised and that he will write to me, because one or two of them have some merit. I repeat our general support for the Government in this matter. The Minister will also be pleased to know that I shall not have to deliver on the bet that I struck with him in private a few moments ago. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 — Accommodation

Clause 47 — Procedure

Clause 51 — Refugee Convention: Construction

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 28, line 1, leave out Clause 51.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 35, in page 28, line 2 [Clause 51], leave out subsection (1).

No. 54, in page 28, line 5 [Clause 51], leave out from 'terrorism' to 'and' in line 6 and insert

'where such acts amount to offences in UK law'.

No. 55, in page 28, line 8 [Clause 51], leave out from 'terrorism' to end of line 9 and insert

'where such acts amount to offences in UK law'.

No. 36, in page 28 [Clause 51], leave out lines 26 and 27.

No. 56, in page 28, line 26 [Clause 51], leave out from 'section' to end of line 27 and insert

'20 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. )'.

No. 26, in page 28, line 31, leave out Clause 52.

No. 37, in page 28, line 32 [Clause 52], leave out subsection (1).

No. 1, in page 28, line 35 [Clause 52], leave out 'satisfied' and insert 'sure'.

No. 38, in page 28, line 37 [Clause 52], leave out 'that Act' and insert

'the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61).'

No. 39, in page 29, line 4 [Clause 53], leave out subsection (1).

No. 2, in page 29, line 8 [Clause 53], leave out 'thinks' and insert 'is sure'.

No. 40, in page 29, line 8 [Clause 53], leave out from 'State' to end of line 10 and insert

'is satisfied that the person had done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of—

(a) the United Kingdom, or

(b) a British Overseas Territory.'.

No. 41, in page 29, line 23 [Clause 53], leave out 'not'.

No. 42, in page 29, line 25 [Clause 53], leave out from 'person' to end of line and insert

'had done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of—

(a) the United Kingdom, or

(b) a British Overseas Territory.'.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I should tell the House that, barring anything earth-shatteringly revealing being said by the Minister on these amendments, it is my intention to divide the House on amendment No. 34 and, with your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, on amendment No. 37.

Unfortunately, time is short, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am keen to hear the words of honeyed sweet reason that I know will drip from the Minister if he is given the opportunity. So, if I may seek the indulgence of the House, I shall assume a greater degree of prior knowledge of the provisions of article 1(F)(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention than had originally been my intention.

I have chosen to focus on amendment No. 34 because it seeks the removal of clause 51. The other amendments relating to that clause seek to achieve much the same end, but by taking rather more circuitous routes. I suggest that amendment No. 34 is by some significant measure the most straightforward and, if I may venture to say so, elegant way of dealing with this issue.

I cannot think of another example in which the discretion of the courts in construing articles in a convention has been fettered in the way set out in clause 51. The clause purports to define article 1(F)(c) of the convention, which concerns exceptions based on

"acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".

I do not understand why the clause is necessary, and that view is shared by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.

In a briefing to me, the ILPA pointed out that the 1951 convention is an international convention in respect of which the international jurisprudence and UNHCR statements are relevant. The ILPA put it to me:

"To purport to interpret it in statute is to fail to respect this jurisprudence and to usurp the role of judges in interpreting it."

As ever, the Government seek to go much further than is necessary. The definition they want to import is much wider than is either necessary or desirable. I draw the attention of the House to clause 51(1)(b), which speaks of

"acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism".

A person may thereby be excluded from recognition as a refugee for acts that are not recognised in this country as crimes.

The UNHCR handbook, which is part of the jurisprudence to be applied in construing this measure, says that article 1F(c)

"is intended to cover in a general way such acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations that might not be fully covered by the two preceding . . . clauses."

That refers to article 1F(a) and (b). The handbook continues:

"Taken . . . with the latter, it has to be assumed, although this is not specifically stated, that the acts covered . . . must . . . be of a criminal nature."

It is apparent from that, surely, that the definition employed by the UNHCR handbook is already very wide. The only limitation that seems to be in place is that the act complained of should constitute a crime. However, even beyond that exceptionally wide definition the Government seek to go.

That, again, is the view of the ILPA. The Minister might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" He might also say that if the Liberal Democrats are agreeing with the ILPA, that is equally unsurprising, but I must bring it to the attention of the House that that is the view not only of the ILPA and the Liberal Democrats, but of the UNHCR. If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I would like to refer to a few of the objections that the UNHCR has brought to our attention.

First, the UNHCR makes the point that clause 51 interprets article 1F(c)

"out of its context, contrary to accepted rules of interpretation of a treaty under international law."

Secondly, the UNHCR says that the clause

"introduces an interpretation . . . which is incompatible with the accepted and long-standing interpretation of Article 1 F(c)."

The UNHCR essentially makes the same points as the ILPA, as well as further statements, and the UNHCR briefing says that

"bearing in mind the interrelationship between the three subsections of the provision, it is important that Article 1 F be interpreted and applied holistically. As presently drafted, Clause 51 is a piecemeal attempt to interpret one subsection of a provision which should be read as a whole and in context. UNHCR is concerned that the adoption of Clause 51 will result in a skewed and imbalanced application of the exclusion clauses in the UK. In its stead, UNHCR would recommend that the UK government consider the incorporation of Article 1 F in its entirety into domestic legislation. Such a measure would ensure that the exclusion clauses are considered in context and on a strong legal footing."

The briefing then says that

"terrorist-type acts (as defined in relevant international conventions) may qualify as excludable acts under Article 1 F if they reach an appropriate level of gravity to warrant denial of protection. This does not mean, however, that any act labelled as 'terrorist' per se should automatically trigger exclusion under article 1 F. The fact that there are serious reasons for considering that an individual has committed acts described as 'terrorist' in nature should trigger consideration of the exclusion clauses but may not in itself generally constitute sufficient evidence to justify exclusion. Each case will require individual consideration, taking into account the unique circumstances of each individual, their acts, motivation and risk on return. In this regard, UNHCR wishes to express serious concern over the current proposal in clause 51 to automatically link acts defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 with an excludable offence under Article 1 F(c) of the Refugee Convention."

I am grateful to the House for its indulgence in allowing me to read that out, which is not my normal practice. It is important, however, to get the point across. If the Minister is not minded to listen to us, to which I have become accustomed over recent months, or even to the ILPA, surely such clear and unambiguous condemnation from the UNHCR should give the Government pause for thought.

Clauses 52 and 53, which concern the deprivation of citizenship and right of abode, would, as drafted, introduce a ground that continued enjoyment of citizenship or right of abode was not conducive to the public good. That, of course, is the test applied in relation to deportation or exclusion—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Of foreign nationals.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Of foreign nationals, as my hon. Friend reminds me from a sedentary position.

In our view, that test is far too low for such a serious step. It is a quantum leap to deprive someone of their citizenship or right of abode when that person, although they have a second nationality, might never have had recourse to using it, might have no links to the country concerned and might never have lived in it. To put someone in a position of relying on a citizenship other than their British citizenship on such a low test is unacceptable. The effect of our amendment No. 37 is to retain as the test for depriving an individual of citizenship that they should be shown to have done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a British overseas territory.

The Conservative amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are interesting, particularly No. 2, which seeks to delete the provision relating to Ministers' thinking. I venture to say that if the Government are going to be required to satisfy courts that Ministers had thought about something before they did it, they might be in for a lean time as far as successful cases in court are concerned. I can think of no other instance in which "thinks" is used in such a situation. I would be interested if the Minister could point me towards a precedent. In the event of his failure to do so, it would be sensible for the Government to accept amendment No. 2.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I will be brief, given the time that is left. It is a pity that we have such a short time to debate what, I think, is one of the most important sections of the Bill, including a group of clauses that were added in Committee, have never been debated on the Floor of the House and are some of the most important changes that have been made. It is probably true that clauses 51 to 53 will affect relatively small numbers of people. For those small numbers of people, however, they will be extremely important.

I have two or three points. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked whether clause 51 is necessary, in that the existing law provides for the exclusion of someone who is a violent terrorist from claiming asylum. I will not repeat what he said about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In the years in which I have been in the House, however, the UNHCR has commented on a number of provisions in asylum and immigration Bills, and the comments about clause 51 are probably the strongest that I have seen from it about any such clause and its incompatibility with the 1951 convention. It made it very clear that interpretation of the convention is not what we should be doing. The provisions in the convention cannot be unilaterally modified by a state that is a contracting party to the convention. It wants states that have not already done so to incorporate not just article 1(F)(c) of the convention but (a) and (b).

Last week we debated the Terrorism Bill, which has not yet completed its passage. The definitions in clause 51 are relevant to that Bill. The definition of "encouraging terrorism" is an example. It is quite possible that before we finish considering the Terrorism Act, there will be changes. I am also not sure how Government amendments relating to extra-territorial acts of terrorism that were agreed last week should be read in the context of this Bill, or how any changes will be dealt with. One of the commitments made by the Government during last week's debate was that the Home Secretary would ask Lord Carlile to review the definition of terrorism, not just in the Terrorism Bill but in the Terrorism Act 2000. The definition in the 2000 Act is mentioned in clause 51 of this Bill. I want to be certain that the outcome of any review, including Lord Carlile's review, will be translated into this Bill, because it strikes me as inconsistent to include a definition of terrorism in one Bill that does not relate clearly to the definition in another.

I wish we had had more time to debate such a critical part of the Bill, but I shall end my speech now, because the Minister will want to speak during the few minutes that are left.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister wants to speak.

Let me repeat what I said in Committee. When the Minister introduced the new clause relating to deprivation of citizenship, he spoke with great courtesy and authority. I repeat that my party stands united behind the Government's attempts to combat the surge of terrorism. Indeed, the whole House is united on that. I should have like to question the Minister on a number of matters, but time is against us and I believe that they will be raised in another place. Deprivation of citizenship will, I think, be used rarely—it has been used rarely so far—and I know that the Government will retain a right of appeal. I also know that the Government will do their best to strike a balance between civil liberties and the defence of the realm. We are with them 100 per cent. on that, and I believe that any further matters that I might raise with the Minister will be raised in another place.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am glad that we have at least some time left.

Let me rebut the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He knows the context in which these clauses were introduced as well as I do. Although not all Members, including members of the Committee, were not party to the gestation period when the clauses were discussed, they were discussed on an all-party basis throughout and beyond the summer. The other place will be aware of that. I do not accept the terms in which my hon. Friend described the genesis of the clauses or, indeed, the final discussions.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on amendment No. 34, for reasons of time rather than for any other reason. The UNHCR considerations are serious, although in part they challenge and condemn many past UN discussions and resolutions.

I received a very nice letter from Bemma Donkoh, the UNHCR's representative in London, which laid all these things out and said, "Best wishes, see you again soon, lots of love Bemma". We have a strong and not always unduly non-critical relationship. It is a good one.

It is right and proper that, with all the cross-party deliberations about terrorism, these clauses sit in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, rather than in some omnibus terrorism Bill. I thank everyone on the Committee for setting a full day aside to deliberate these clauses and for the discussion that was held, which was interesting, informed and moved things on in some regard. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), as he has reminded me twice now, made a very good speech, although he seemed surprised that he had done so—there was shock in his voice when he said "I made a very good speech that day".

The UNHCR points are serious and need to be considered with the seriousness that they deserve. The charge is that clause 51 is not compatible with the refugee convention, but part of the justification for clause 51 in all its glory is that it reflects the relevant Security Council resolutions that refer to the guiding principles of the UN. UN Security Council resolution 1373 states that

"knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts"

as well as the commission of such acts constitute acts

"contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

UN Security Council resolution 1377 is broadly in the same terms. I said in Committee that, as and when—fortunately, the progress of Bills through Parliament favours this—there needs to be read-across between the Terrorism Bill and any changes made to the constituent parts of that, and this Bill, we will seek to reflect those changes in this Bill. That makes perfect sense. I cannot pre-empt what the other place will do with the Terrorism Bill, but we stand ready to cross-reference the two Bills in the appropriate place.

I think that, given the state of this Bill and the state of the Terrorism Bill, little needs to happen, not least because Lord Carlile will conduct a substantive review of the definition of terrorism over the year. Much of the debate about read-across refers to the definitions that are included in the Terrorism Bill.

We believe that the UNHCR's points about the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act are unfair. The definition is compatible with article 1(F)(c) of the refugee convention, as is the 2005 Terrorism Bill. We do not consider it to be at odds with UN Security Council resolutions that were drawn up reflecting the principles of the UN.

We are exhorted by UNHCR to take a holistic approach to exclusion clauses. We argue that we have done so, and they are reflected in this Bill. Clause 51 is not piecemeal. Our approach to the application of article 1(F) is holistic and we contest the points made by UNHCR in that regard.

We take the same attitude to the points made about positions of power. The UNHCR London paper suggests that in principle only persons who have been in power or a state-like entity would be capable of committing such acts, given that articles 1 and 2 of the UN charter set out the fundamental principles that states must uphold in mutual relations. A slew of Asylum and Immigration Tribunal case law and Security Council resolutions themselves contend that very position. Although I take UNHCR's points very seriously and take into account the points made by my hon. Friends and other colleagues that these are serious clauses in the Bill, I do not accept UNHCR's point that, of themselves and in their own terms, they are incompatible with the overall thrust of what is in the UN charter. They are very serious clauses that are a consequence of what we are trying to achieve in the broader sense in counter-terrorism and I—

Clause 52 — Deprivation of Citizenship

Schedule 1 — Immigration and Asylum Appeals: Consequential Amendments

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As is customary on Third Reading, I thank all the members of the Standing Committee for what seemed to me, in my limited experience of the House, to be an informed, discursive and useful debate. We had plenty of time and all the necessary matters were considered in a spirit of reasonable discourse and, on the odd day, with some intellectual rigour. Our sittings were extremely useful and productive, as is right and proper given that the Bill deals with a range of extremely serious matters in the context of an important political debate. That description applied even before the Government introduced—with agreement—the counter-terrorism clauses after the Bill had been published. That was a most unusual way of proceeding, but the House in the main will understand why things happened that way. There was a significant degree of cross-party agreement on the process, if not on the substance of those clauses.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No, I will not.

The Bill should be seen in the context of a substantive political debate. Last February, we proposed a series of plans and policies on asylum and immigration. We published a five-year plan, on which the Prime Minister elaborated in the course of the general election. The Bill addresses much of that, but as I said in Committee it constitutes a series of building blocks. I mean no discourtesy in respect of previous pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour Government when I say that the Bill is not, and was not offered up as, an all-singing, all-dancing omnibus Bill that answers every conceivable question on the range of immigration, asylum and nationality issues. I made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading that much of what is in the Bill should be seen as building blocks. Although that does not fit in terribly well with our processes and how we do what we do, I said that the Bill needed to be read in the context of the five-year plan and all that we seek to do in that plan in terms not simply of immigration, but of asylum and how we are trying to secure our borders through the e-borders programme and the border management programme. We are putting out for public discussion every aspect of where we are with asylum and immigration.

It would be remiss of me, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, if the Bill, as it is now to be dispatched to the other place, were not put in the context of the political debate. I make no apologies for mentioning again that collectively the British polity, British public policy and the British media did not serve themselves or others well by the way in which these matters were covered during the general election. Throughout the election, these matters were discussed in terms and in a form that was proxy for a debate that we may or may not need on community cohesion, on race and on other such issues. They were wrapped up in rather bogus fashion as constituting a serious debate. I fully concur, not least as the Minister responsible for immigration, that such a debate is needed.

We need a debate on asylum and immigration matters, but the way that such matters were discussed during the general election is a matter of shame, not least for the Conservative party. I am extremely pleased that none of the dripping poison that polluted our democratic process was evident in Committee. I heartily congratulate every Conservative Member in Committee for not going down the route that their central party took during the general election. I freely attest that that route was not taken by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins); nor was it taken by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). However, in the context of the general election they should collectively hang their heads in shame and send the running dog from Australia back to where he came from.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Perhaps the Minister will now address his remarks to the Bill on Third Reading.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you allowed me a little licence to consider the political context in which the Bill has been discussed.

There is no doubt, in the broadest of terms of British public policy over 30 years, that we have collectively run away from a substantive debate on asylum and immigration. I have no difficulty in engaging in such a debate. I am pleased that the Bill is before the House at a time soon enough after the election to put these matters in context. That is of great service to British public policy generally and to the House.

The Bill is about only those matters that need legislation in the context of the five-year plan, based on what was published in February. The provisions in the Bill now put it in a better place than it was when we started consideration in Committee. There is no doubt about that. Many of the amendments that we discussed today on Report go back to our discussions in Committee and take on board many of the points that were made by Committee members. Sometimes they have not met the full satisfaction of hon. Members, but I think that people will concur, when they read the Hansard report of our considerations, that many Government amendments were an attempt to meet some of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. There were some genuine concerns, many of which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I attested in Committee, will be readily dealt with in secondary legislation and in other forms that will be wrapped round the Bill rather than being part of it.

We think that the Bill improves our ability to improve border security by allowing border agencies to share passenger data more efficiently. It allows the use of 21st century technology to facilitate legitimate travel and to improve the identification of illegal immigration. That is not simply in terms of the Bill but in the context of everything else that we are doing in respect of important elements of policy.

I freely admit that the most contentious part of the Bill was the introduction of a rationalised appeal system for managed migration routes in line with improved decision making on visa applications. That is very important in the context of the points system. I may not owe the House an apology, but I accept that it is difficult for Members who did not serve on the Committee to understand the narrow focus of the legislation without the wider picture of the consultation paper on the points system and other aspects of the five-year plan. I repeat the promise that I gave in Committee: as there is no substantive change to the points system during the transitional phase, we shall preserve the appeals regime during that period. If discrete parts of the points system can be introduced early, the quid pro quo is that appeals will fall away. That will give us sufficient time to bed in the new resources, the decision-making process and other improvements in entry clearance officer structures. Hopefully, if the full-time independent monitor is appointed by January, they will be in post when our new decision-making process is introduced, which is all to the good.

Genuine concerns have been expressed, some of which I did not accept, about unifying the appeal process to a single level of appeal. However, I tried to address anxieties about the transition to a points system without appeals. The Bill provides for civil penalties for employers of illegal workers, and creates a new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker. The five-year plan and all the provisions in the Bill contain the vital elements of a progressive asylum and immigration process. If we are to do everything that we can to maintain our position on the 1951 refugee convention and ensure that this country remains a safe haven for people fleeing persecution, we must simultaneously adopt a robust approach to the removal of people who do not have refugee status under the convention.

Some people do not like that approach, but I am convinced that if we are to preserve the integrity of the convention—hopefully, no party will fight the next election saying that they will get rid of the 1951 convention, as that would be shameful—we need equally robust decision-making and removals processes.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I accept what the Minister says about a robust removals programme. Does he accept, however, that the practice of dawn raids on families with children goes beyond robustness and strays into the realms of barbarity?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No, I do not. I can tell the hon. Gentleman quite cheerfully that much of the debate, not least in the Scottish context, has been racked with inaccuracies, misinformation and outright mischief.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

What about raids at 5 am?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I could cite at length coverage in the Scottish media that talks about tear gas and riot police, as well as armies of police dragging children from their beds and kicking down doors at 4 am. None of those things are a substantial part of what the immigration service does in Scotland or elsewhere. The debate is ever so slightly skewed in the Scottish context. I freely accept that it is my job to make sure that we never reach a stage where people who make applications, whether or not they are successful in obtaining refugee status, languish in the system for four or five years, as that has an impact on integration, the putting down of roots and so on.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

On the Scottish context, will the Minister say why the Government tabled new clause 3 on access to the housing list in Scotland, which is clearly a devolved matter, and why they then withdrew that provision?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall cheerfully do so. The new clause was tabled on Report. I think—people far more expert than I will tell me if I am wrong—that was at the behest of the Scottish Executive, not least because there was an assumption that there is a grey area between what is a UK matter and what is devolved in regard to what we are doing in the Bill. Between the tabling of the new clause and our considerations today, there was a court case that rendered the form and the language of the new clause inappropriate.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being exceptionally generous at this late stage in the debate. Is he saying that the Scottish Executive asked for new clause 3 to be tabled or to be withdrawn? I did not understand.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I apologise for my lack of clarity. Working with the Scottish Executive, it was determined that the clause needed to be tabled. The Court of Appeal in the case of Morris—we got the final judgment this week—made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996, holding that that provision was within the ambit of article 8 of the European convention on human rights and breached article 14, as it discriminated on grounds of nationality, immigration control, settled residence and social welfare.

New clause 3(1)(d) is in the same terms as section 185(4) and, although it does not apply to persons subject to immigration control, but only to other persons from abroad—essentially European Economic Area nationals—which was the point of the new clause, it has the same potential for discriminatory effect. A petition has been filed in the House of Lords seeking leave to appeal. That is the present position. As the new clause was incompatible with section 185(4), it was withdrawn. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know in more detail about its gestation, but it originated from discussion between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive. If the hon. Gentleman understands that, he is a better man than me, but that is why the new clause was withdrawn in the end.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I welcome the Minister's comments on the need to get tough on deporting those whose applications have failed and who are in the country illegally. The other day, I asked his Department a written question: how many people in this country are awaiting deportation owing to failed asylum and immigration applications? The Department's answer was that that information was not available. Is that not the problem? The Government have not got a grip on illegal immigration.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I hope that in replying to the hon. Gentleman, the Minister will not stray too far from Third Reading of the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall follow your exhortation, Madam Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that a confrere of the hon. Gentleman made a stupid and ignorant statement in the general election—"Which part of 'Send them back' don't you understand, Mr. Blair?" In the context of the Bill and more generally, that shows a profound lack of understanding of the individual. Let me make it clear: it was not the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker); it was the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

We need to understand each individual's case, assess their level of documentation and establish that there is agreement with the country that they are going to about whether they can go or not, and that they are who they say they are.

If the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) makes that comment in the context of the five-year plan, regardless of what is in the Bill, with a modicum of satisfaction about the level of removals between 1979 and 1997, I wager him that the figures were not very good then, compared with now. In the context of the Bill and generally, one must understand that these are difficult matters. We have gone from a position where, at best, those who had unfounded claims in the end were being removed at a rate of 200 a month at a time when applications for asylum were pushing 10,000 a month, to a position now where, roughly speaking—we are always about three months behind in these matters—1,400 or 1,500 are being removed at a time when new applications are about 2,000 a month. That is huge progress. Prior to that, the position was even worse.

Elements of the Bill will assist us in reaching a stage where there is a robust asylum system that defends the rights of those who secure refugee status, and put us right back where we have always been collectively and across parties. The UK has a proud history, in the main, as regards refugee status.

The second key element—

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have said no.

If the public are to have confidence in immigration policy, we must have a controlled, managed migration system, which we announced in February with the introduction of the points system. The quid pro quo for public confidence in a transparent, simplified, managed migration system is—this goes to the heart of the Bill—a proper regime, which includes employers taking responsibility for dealing with illegal working. The two elements that I have mentioned are reflected in the Bill, outlined in the five-year plan and the strategy document, and go to the heart of a progressive system.

As I have said, provisions were added to the Bill after the cross-party deliberations in July. They concern denying asylum to terrorists, extending the power to strip citizenship from those who act in ways contrary to the UK's interest and speeding up the appeals process in national security deportation cases. I agree with those who suggest that it would nice if the other place were to have a detailed discussion on that point, reflecting our discussion in Committee rather than today's truncated debate. Those elements, too, form a measured and proportionate response to the real threat that we face. Some hon. Members—happily a minority—think that the threat is not significant. The measures are aimed at people who threaten the UK's national security and engage in unacceptable behaviour that creates a climate in which extremism can take root.

As I said in Committee, I do not believe that the measures will impact on large numbers of people in practice. As ever, some hon. Members—they were not members of the Committee—seek to take a universal position, assume that every attempt to counter terrorism affects everybody rather than just a small minority, and pollute and distort the argument.

We shall utilise technology where we can in the context of this Bill and beyond, and we are introducing biometrics now rather than later for foreign visa nationals. This country has a chance to introduce a progressive asylum and immigration system rooted in a context in which refugees are welcome. If we need a debate about community cohesion—our communities are now third, fourth or fifth generation—we can have it, because the Bill and the strategy that surrounds it will hopefully lance the Powellite poison and Mickey Mouse Alf Garnett impressions that have characterised discussions about asylum and immigration thus far. That way lies madness, so I am pleased that this Bill gets us to a place where we have a progressive asylum and immigration policy.

I thank the official Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive contributions. I will not thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who chickened out and worked on another Bill rather than joining us. Liberal Democrat Front Benchers made some productive contributions, but not a whole lot—I might add that those contributions were always at length, too. I thank the Whip, who did an expert job, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I also thank the army, nay legion, of lawyers, policy officials and Home Office people who have helped us make what on the face of it looks like a small contribution to asylum and immigration policy in this country. In the wider context of the five-year plan and the strategy, however, the Bill has a significance way beyond its actual provisions.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about official Opposition Front Benchers and agree that we have had a measured and constructive discussion. Because I am at the Dispatch Box this evening on Third Reading, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who has done sterling work on this Bill. The Government's timetabling placed him in some difficulty because he was working on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 at the same time.

We have had a reasonable examination of the Bill. As the Minister knows, there is much that Conservative Members agree with. I was happy with the way in which the Government introduced the late clauses because of the need to tidy up some of the provisions relating to terrorism. I thank the Minister for making his officials available to brief me and my Front-Bench colleagues, because that enabled us to approach the amendments in a slightly different fashion from what would have been the case had we been unsighted.

The Bill moves this whole area forward. It includes some good measures on fingerprinting, passenger and crew information, information sharing, searches, and the deprivation of citizenship and right of abode, which the Government have understandably felt it necessary to propose in response to the current situation.

However, the Minister always has to spoil things a little by having a political dig at the Conservatives. He should be more magnanimous in victory; after all, his party won the election. I will not take any lessons from him or hang my head in shame, because whatever an individual may have said in the heat of an election, it does not represent my party's views. He does a disservice to the whole business of politics by raising that here.

More refinements may be made to the Bill in another place, perhaps in the light of current events or the way in which we have conducted ourselves here. I see that the Minister is nodding. I hope that the pattern of Conservative Members' voting indicates to another place those areas where we have concerns. If truth be told, the Minister would also have some concerns were he not tied by his office.

The current drafting of the provisions on appeals is a muddle, and that will cost us in terms of our reputation at home and abroad. There is probably good reason to retain in-country rights of appeal in some cases, where people will be in the country having entered legally with leave. The disruption if they are forced to leave the UK will be sufficiently enormous not only to create administrative chaos, but potentially to give rise to successful human rights applications in the courts and compensation claims. The effects on our universities and higher education institutions have been laid out pretty well in Committee and on Report.

The Minister needs to deal with the situation whereby refugees may be left in limbo. The Refugee Council has said:

"It is a shame that the plan to leave refugees living in limbo for five years before giving them the right to settle in Britain has been included. This measure contradicts other helpful steps—such as the extension of integration loans—which assist refugees in building new lives in this country."

That reflects its view of some of the Bill's other provisions. The Government say that they wish to have a one-stop appeals system, but I should have thought that there were alternative ways of achieving that. I hope that the other place will examine that carefully, because improvements could be made.

The quality of the decision making on entry clearance appeals has been identified as being poor, even in the report by the Constitutional Affairs Committee from which I quoted earlier. We are pleased that there is scope for review and monitoring. However, as additional efforts to improve quality control do not substitute for what is already in place, particularly for appeals, we hope that that will be examined in another place.

As regards employment, there are real risks that employers, not least because of the heavy burden of checking placed upon them, will be reluctant to employ people who are, or whom they think might be, subject to immigration control. That could result in an increase of discrimination in employment. The proposed code of practice certainly holds no magic answer to this problem.

The ongoing obligation on employers to check the immigration status of employees will cause difficulties in practice. For example, at the time when a person's leave is due to run out, their documents are usually with the Home Office. There has been criticism from the Immigration Advisory Service and even from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, whose chief executive has said that part of the Bill is asking employers to do the Home Office's dirty work, and that people migrate here because there is work for them to do. There are warnings there, as well as in the views of the CBI and the National Farmers Union about the employment of agricultural workers.

I was pleased that the Minister accepted some of our suggestions, particularly the amendment relating to the period of 28 days. We thank him for looking with favour on that. On the powers of search and arrest, it is extremely risky to give private contractors the right to detain. The Government say that the contractors will only be searching lorries, but what would happen if they found someone? I am still worried about the scrutiny, accountability and oversight of private contractors, on whom I am actually very keen. Concerns have also been expressed in that regard about the potential for ill-treatment during detention and escort, and those concerns must be dealt with at some stage. There is certainly no case for giving powers to detain, arrest or search to anyone other than professionals. The Minister must ensure that the people who are employed in this area are trained, skilled and accountable. Perhaps that issue will be considered in another place.

I would like to acknowledge the people who have briefed us on these issues. There have not been as many lawyers, officials and rafts of people coming to our door to brief us as the Government have had, but we have been very impressed by the calibre of the organisations that have sought to have their views aired. I hope that they will consider that we have done justice to their views, even though in some cases we do not entirely agree with them.

I also want to acknowledge the work of all members of the Committee. As I said at the end of the Committee stage, the Bill will make our borders safer and make our country a better place for people to come and live in and to visit. We hope that the legislation, in whatever form it finally appears, will help the people who defend our country to do a better job and to make it a place that provides us with a safe and sure environment.

The Bill will go to the other place, where I hope it will be refined in some of the ways that I have outlined today. However, in the light of the way in which we have conducted the proceedings on the scrutiny of the Bill, I would like to tell the Minister that, should a vote be called on Third Reading tonight, I shall ask my hon. Friends who are present in the House to join the Government in the Lobby, to ensure that both parties stand four-square against terrorism. The message must go out clearly from the House that, regardless of rhetoric and political differences, when it comes to the safety and security of our citizens the Conservative party will stand behind the Government in this instance.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I see that we have about a minute left, so it will be difficult to make much of a contribution. I want to make the point that, for some of us, there are still areas of serious concern in the Bill, especially on appeal rights. I know that a lot of what has to be done on appeal rights will depend on secondary legislation, and I say to the Minister that I hope that he talks to Members of the House before that legislation is introduced so that we are clear about where we can and cannot maintain some appeal rights.

I am grateful for what the Minister said about unaccompanied minors, and I hope that we can make more progress on that. Will he make absolutely sure that there is a clear relationship between what the House finally agrees on the Terrorism Bill—