Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

House of Commons, 29 March 2006.

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

I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19. If the House agrees to either of those Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1 — Variation of leave to enter or remain

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 10, 20, 32 to 37, 39 and 40.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

This group of amendments is a package that will allow all decisions to be considered in a single set of appeal proceedings. I am glad that we have been able to make those changes in response to sensible concerns and suggestions, while achieving the effective one-stop appeal system that we sought. All the amendments are Government amendments reacting to sensible points made during the debate. That has characterised proceedings on the Bill in both this and the other place. Some good discussion and debate has taken place around a range of serious matters, which have been dealt with clearly by Front-Benchers on the Floor of the House and upstairs.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If I may, I shall progress beyond the first paragraph before giving way.

The amendments will restore an in-country right of appeal against a decision to curtail or to refuse to vary leave where the effect of such a decision is that the person in question has no leave to enter or remain. That is the case under existing legislation. That point was discussed at length in Committee and in another place.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend before he gave us the good news. I welcome the fact that he has listened to those who have expressed worries about the proposals. Does he share my view that it is also important that the backlog of cases at the immigration appeal tribunal is dealt with as quickly as possible, so that people who appeal get quick decisions rather than having to wait a long time, thereby prolonging the delay?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

My hon. Friend will know that that point bears no relation to this set of amendments, but I am more than happy to concur with the thrust of his remarks. We are making the system far more effective, through a range of measures, than it is currently.

On the import of the amendments and the clauses to which they apply, we maintain that changes are needed to create an effective one-stop appeal system, with the caveat to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) referred about the original system. To facilitate that, we have created a power to make a removal decision while a person's leave is extended by statute. That will put the onus on the Government to make variation and removal decisions simultaneously in order to gain the benefits of that provision. Appellants will be able to contest a decision to curtail or to refuse to vary leave at the same time as they can contest a decision to remove them from the UK. That right of appeal can be exercised while in the UK and the appellant will continue to enjoy leave, on the same terms as before, during the appeal process. For example, a student will be able to continue studying throughout his appeal proceedings. Again, the position is the same under existing legislation.

We have also introduced a new order-making power, which will potentially place a limit on the power to certify asylum and human rights claims as clearly unfounded. The intention is that that will allow the Secretary of State to designate certain categories of applicants as being beyond the scope of the section 94 certification powers in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That will enable us to ensure that where people have been granted leave on a particular basis, they will always be entitled to an in-country right of appeal.

Those changes fit into the wider strategy of implementing an end-to-end migration process. That will incorporate other elements of the five-year strategy, such as the introduction of e-borders, which will help us to know when people fail to comply with the terms of their leave. Specific concerns were expressed, however, about clauses 1, 3 and 11, and the interplay between them, in terms of those variations, which I think we have rectified through the amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister referred to the assumption of a new order-making power and to a category of persons to whom it would apply. For the elucidation of those of us who did not serve on the Standing Committee and who have not been privy all along to the details of the Government's thinking, can he say exactly who will be in that category and therefore to whom the new order-making power will apply?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an entirely fair point. We do not intend to use that power with any repetition or regularity, but at one end of the process it will include children, and in other cases it will include those who, through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission or other processes, have been earmarked as necessarily being excluded. It is not—I am grateful that this did not characterise our deliberations too much—a universal power that affects everyone but is used in limited circumstances. In many other debates on the subject, the House has taken a universalistic approach to measures that were intended to deal with very limited circumstances. That certainly applies in this instance.

I said in Committee that when we were in a position to elaborate before embarking on the process of making the order, if it proved possible to consult and give the House further details of the nature and shape of the order before it was put to the House I would do so, in keeping with the approach that I had tried to adopt in Committee.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

By how much will the appeal process be shortened if the Government amendments are passed?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The main purpose is to establish a one-stop appeal process and for all matters to be considered on that one-stop basis. At worst, there are currently any number of lengthy delays leading up to an appeal on variation of leave, and further delay after the appeal has been resolved and as a prelude to an appeal on removal. By definition, the amendments must truncate the appeal process while, crucially, maintaining all the human-rights considerations such as fair play and natural justice that should prevail during it.

The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman's question really depends on his definition of how long the combined process lasts now, and on how we can reduce it to one stop. However, there is a backstop to all the options in the shape of natural justice and all the other elements of given rights, and a full deliberation on all aspects of an individual's case at the one-stop appeal.

I have not counted them, but there is a range of amendments which, although consequential, are consequential to substantive amendments that go to the heart of many of the genuine anxieties expressed by Members of both Houses about a crucial matter, which some Members may wish to follow up. I refer to the interplay between clauses 1, 3 and 11, and the way in which they relate to all aspects of appeals on variation of leave. We think that the Bill is now in much better shape—

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

rose—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

rose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall return to the stereo in a moment. First, if I may, I shall finish my sentence.

We think that the Bill is now in much better shape because of the scrutiny here, in Committee and in the other place, and that the House can feel more than satisfied that the current proposals are appropriate.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

May I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)? I believe that it related to Lords amendment No. 10, which deals with the order-making power in regard to certification. If I understand the amendment correctly, it provides for the Government to introduce orders under the power to protect people from certification. I trust that that would apply to a number of groups, as well as unaccompanied children. The amendment seems to imply that certification will, or may, happen unless an order is introduced.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In relation specifically to the amendment, my hon. Friend is right. In the wider context of certification, the provision goes beyond that. When we discussed the issue in Committee, my hon. Friend expressed particular concerns about unaccompanied children. I said then, and repeated a moment ago, that when we knew the final shape and direction of not just the order but the substance, I would be more than happy to present it to the House before the order-making process went ahead in the normal fashion.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

As the Minister knows, I write to him frequently because of the immigration issues that arise in my surgery. Three or four will probably arise this week. Although it is claimed that the process will be completed within 13 weeks, it is generally more like 13 months, which causes a great deal of anxiety. I hope that the amendments will improve the position.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I cannot claim that the amendments will deal with the much-vexed issue of the 13-week clause in letters, but I take the hon. Gentleman's wider point about the immigration and nationality directorate—rather like other Government bodies—saying what it means and meaning what it says. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have engaged in extensive meetings, six or seven of them, with a range of Members. Some, but not all, have focused on new Members. I had a meeting only the other day—happily, I did not spend too much time at it—with the Liberal Democrats. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) has received this information yet, but I have said that if a meeting with new Conservative Members proves necessary, I shall be more than happy to arrange it. However, I hope, and am assured, that the stock of "It will take only 13 weeks" letters is diminishing as we speak.

I want the IND to be very clear about relisted time limits, however embarrassing that may be. I envy the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) if he receives only three or four letters a week; my office, in a London constituency, receives about that number in an hour, and far more cases arise in my surgery. We should bear it in mind that the people involved are often in the most vulnerable circumstances. To them, 13 weeks means 13 weeks, and after 13 weeks, to the day, they are on the telephone to Members of Parliament and others wanting something to be done. The time limits should reflect reality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the position is improving, but scope remains for things always to get better, as someone said.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

As the Minister will know, the demography of my constituency is such that I do not receive a large number of such cases, but those that I do receive are of great importance to the people who come to me, and of great importance to me.

May I ask the Minister two things about the order-making power? First, it is not clear to me—I am not suspicious, but I want to know—whether it is subject to the negative procedure of the House, as I suspect, or to its affirmative counterpart. Secondly, may we have sight of further details of the power before the legislation is given Royal Assent?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In answer to the second question, I can say—without tempting presumption in relation to this House or the other place—that I hope for a rather swift Royal Assent. I therefore cannot promise sight of those details between now and Royal Assent, assuming that matters proceed as I expect—although they may not, of course. I repeat, however, that I will ensure that the House has sight of the details before the order is laid, so that Members know what is coming rather than seeing it for the first time on the Order Paper. Although I am loth to encourage the hon. Gentleman, because I concentrated on his second question the first now completely escapes me. If he will repeat it, I will respond to it.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Negative versus affirmative.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall need to check. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked us to adopt the affirmative procedure in regard to a range of order-making powers, and in the main we have done that. I hope that I shall receive some sort of inspiration and will be able to let the hon. Gentleman know the answer to his question, but as these are serious matters I have tried more often than not to ensure a positive rather than a negative. Having said that, I must say that in this case it is a negative. However, we shall deal later with other cases that are overwhelmingly positive because we have followed the deliberations of the DPRRC, wherein lies the source of many of the other amendments.

With those caveats, and with the assurance that I shall ensure that the order is available before it is tabled and we engage in the rather limited negative process, I commend the amendments. I think that they put the relationship between clauses 1, 3 and 11 into far better shape, and for that I thank this House and the Standing Committee.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am sure that the whole House was delighted to see the Minister rise to move this group of amendments, given his slightly strange failure to reach the starting gate a couple of weeks ago, when we were meant to be discussing them. I am also very conscious that some in this Chamber, including him, have been toiling for months in the vineyard that is this Bill. I have been added to the toilers at the back-end of the eleventh hour of our proceedings; indeed, I feel like a substitute sent on in injury time, trying to find the pace of the game.

As the Minister said, essentially this group of amendments deals with the vexed subject of appeals, which has been debated passionately throughout the various proceedings in both Houses. I welcome his agreement that they are a tribute to the debates in another place. I pay specific tribute to Baroness Ashton, who has shown that she is a Minister capable of listening and of engaging in constructive debate with Opposition parties. That welcome ministerial attribute is not always a universal one; however, it is a universal attribute of the better Ministers.

There are a number of important issues to discuss when we come to the other groups of amendments, so I shall be brief, particularly given that, in essence, we support the changes that their Lordships have made to this part of the Bill. We share the aim of a shorter appeal process. Over-long legal proceedings bedevil the whole immigration process and, as has already been demonstrated in interventions, they are one reason why so many of those involved in the immigration process regard it as a failing policy area.

We have just discussed the standard 13-week letter that all of us have received from the immigration and nationality directorate. The Minister says that he still has a stock of them that he needs to get through. To be candid, for many of us, the easiest way to get through them would be simply to cross out "week" and insert "month", because these days, 13 months is much more likely to be the time within which people expect to get a response. The Minister probably knows better than anyone that that is simply unacceptable. It is a symbol of the delays that have occurred throughout the process, so we welcome the attempt, through these amendments, to balance the desire to shorten the appeal process with the essential safeguarding of the legal right of those going through the process to feel that they are not being put at a particular and important disadvantage by the Government's proposed changes, which do, of course, in some ways reduce the right of appeal.

The key point is that these amendments meet the concern—expressed by Members of all parties—that an appeal against refusal to vary leave should be in-country, and that people's leave should be preserved on the same terms and conditions until that appeal is finally determined. We therefore welcome them, and we also welcome the fact that appellants with humanitarian protection and unaccompanied minors—a key and sensitive area that, to judge by other groups of amendments, we will consider again later—will benefit from the changes. We welcome the fact that if an asylum appeal is certified as being clearly unfounded, it can still be heard out of country; however, the possibility remains of challenging the certificate by judicial review. That is a sensible step.

Finally, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association seeks two valid assurances. First, can the Minister offer an assurance that the amendments do not create any new powers to subject people to restrictions, over and above the powers that already exist in respect of those with an in-country appeal against a decision to refuse to vary leave? Secondly, can he assure us that the Government are considering using their new powers to protect certain groups from certification of their asylum claims as "clearly unfounded"? I believe that the answer to both questions is yes, but it would be helpful all round if the Minister could say so formally here today.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I will be brief. The amendments go a long way towards answering many of the concerns that were raised in Committee about the changes to appeal rights. Indeed, I welcome many of the changes that have been made.

I have referred already to Lords amendment No. 10, but No. 8 is also important as it deals with a matter that I discussed at some length with the Minister in Committee. It clarifies the position of people whose application for variation of leave is refused and who are waiting for their appeal to be heard, by providing that the terms and conditions of leave will be preserved until that appeal is determined. I hope that I am right in believing that that provision reads over to the clauses dealing with employment, so that people with leave to be here and permission to work would retain that permission until their appeal had been heard.

In Committee, I said that many hon. Members would be familiar with the problem that people given exceptional leave to remain for a number of years might apply for indefinite leave, but that consideration of the application can take so long that their exceptional leave expires. The amendments provide that the terms and conditions of that exceptional leave will still apply, so that people will retain their permission to work. Unfortunately, the problem is that, because such people will be able to show on paper only that their exceptional leave to remain has expired, potential employers do not believe that they retain their permission to work. Similar problems arise with the Benefits Agency—because people's exceptional leave to remain has expired and their valid application for indefinite leave has still to be determined, the agency asks for proof that they are entitled to benefits.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that when the new systems are introduced, people who are notified that their application for variation of leave has been refused and that they have a right of appeal are also told that their existing permission to remain is valid until the appeal is determined. That would help everyone. The people involved would be able to convince employers or the Benefits Agency, if necessary, that their previous entitlements still applied.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that confusion about the matter is a big problem? People bring various bits of paper to advice surgeries, but are not sure what they can and cannot do, so what he suggests would be most helpful.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

It is very common to see people who are not clear about such matters, but most of the people whom I see believe that they should remain entitled to work or to claim benefit. Their problem is that potential employers do not accept that, as it is not possible to produce a piece of paper that says so. All they have is a piece of paper showing that their exceptional leave to remain has expired.

It would help everyone—the individuals concerned, employers, the Benefits Agency and MPs who hold advice surgeries—if the Home Office were to make it clear, when issuing notices of revocation, that people have a right to appeal and that existing permissions continue until that appeal is heard.

Having said that, I welcome the changes that have been made. They pick up many of the points made in Committee, and the structure of the relevant clauses is much better and more acceptable as a result.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

With the use of several metaphors, the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) told us how late he had come to the Bill. I come to it even later, but I make no excuses for that because every year there is an immigration and asylum Bill to catch. I have worked on many of them in previous years.

I do not want to extend the debate on this group of amendments, which I welcome. I acknowledge the Minister's comments about the care that has been taken on both sides—in Committee and on Report in this and another place—to make the measure a workable piece of legislation. I endorse what the hon. Member for Ashford said about Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who is an outstanding Minister. She is characterised by her preparedness always to listen to what is said and to react politely and transparently. She is an object lesson to all Ministers in either House—[Interruption.] Of course, that applies to all Home Office Ministers.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) probably knows more about immigration and asylum than any other Member. He made some apposite comments about documentation, which I support.

The amendments make it clear that there will be in-country appeal and that leave will be preserved according to the same terms and conditions until the appeal is determined. I hope that that will be welcomed on both sides of the House, so that we can move on to groups that contain slightly more contentious issues, which will need longer debate.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I was asked to respond to a couple of points. I shall happily take back to Baroness Ashton people's kind words, which I heartily endorse all round. Once or twice, she invoked me as her Big Brother, nastier version in the Commons, but it got the job done, which is what matters.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) made a fair point when he asked for an assurance that the new powers would not subject people to restrictions over and above existing powers that apply to a person with an in-country appeal against a decision to refuse, vary or curtail leave. I happily give that commitment. The amendments create a new power to make a removal decision while a person has continuing leave, but they do not create new powers to restrict a person's activities, so because people will have continuing leave during an appeal they cannot be detained, or required to report, during the currency of their appeal.

I concur with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) knows far more than anybody else about these matters. Happily for me, this is my first immigration Bill; my hon. Friend has worked on all of them since 1997. We do not always agree about them, but I certainly agree about his integrity and the informed manner with which he puts his case.

My hon. Friend made two points. One was about practicality and goes beyond the Bill. The second was specific to the Bill and I can tell him that, yes, people will have continuing leave on the same terms; for example, if they were able to work before the original decision, they can continue to do so before the appeal. We discussed that at length in Committee.

My hon. Friend's second point, which related more to the practicalities, was how we could reach clarity about a person's continuing status during the appeal. We need to consider that in some detail, but I hope that he agrees that it is a question of practicalities—how we get the message across and raise awareness—rather than substantial to the amendments. We accept the amendment and I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 4 — Entry Clearance

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

If the interplay between clauses 1, 3 and 11 dealt with in-country appeals, clause 4 is just about entry clearance officer appeals. I say that because there was some confusion about whether all those matters came broadly under one heading. The other complication is that clause 4 relates not only to much of what is in the five-year strategy, but equally to what is in the points-based system document that was launched just the other week. Again, I can say, at my emollient best—we all have the training; some of us retain it better than others, and I am clearly not one of them—that I am happy to accept the Lords amendment because there were concerns about how things would operate once appeal rights were removed.

As I have said before, as and when we introduce various parts of the points-based system, only then will the appeal rights fall away. So there is not a big bang approach or a notion that, pending Royal Assent and subsequent commencement, appeals disappear, creating a gap before the points-based system and the new arrangements are introduced. We have made it clear that we will take away the appeal rights, as afforded by clause 4, only as and when the equivalent element of the points-based system is in place.

Clause 4 will remove appeal rights simultaneously with the introduction of the tiers of the new system. We need not dwell on the new system, but I accept the concerns expressed in the Lords amendment: if we are making such a move, which is radical in introducing the points-based system and perhaps in removing the appeal process, it is incumbent on us to make substantive reports to the House about the efficacy or otherwise of the system once the appeal process has been removed. That is essentially what the Lords amendment is about, and we are happy to accept it.

The report will include an assessment of the effect of removing appeals and look at the administrative review process that we will create and other aspects, including—this may be some of concern to hon. Members, but it is not meant to be—the notion that opinions may be recorded, under subsection (3)(g). We want the report to be as full as possible. We want it to include concerns and opinions about how effective or otherwise the system has been from what we are now told—in the training school for Ministers—to call stakeholders. The various groups that have some interest in the efficacy of the points-based system and the removal of appeals should be included in a report presented to the House.

In conclusion, the Lords amendment meets some of those concerns, including the broad concern that British public policy is terribly good at making legislation but not terribly good at taking account of, evaluating and feeding back the success or otherwise of that legislation. That is what the report seeks to address, so we are happy to accept the Lords amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

This will be the apogee of cross-party agreement on the Bill in some ways, since I am inevitably happy to support the Lords amendment, which was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay. Once the Government had rejected the arguments of a wide coalition, including the CBI and Universities UK, that their original ideas about the implementation of clause 4 would be disastrous, my noble Friends in another place had to find the best available option, given the pressures of the Salisbury convention, which they always observe, and Lords amendment No. 6 is precisely the best available option.

The Minister should be aware, however, that in supporting the Lords amendment we do not resile from the deep sense of unease that caused us to vote against the underlying clause, clause 4, in Committee. There are a number of reasons why the reporting back procedure that the Lords amendment proposes is the bare minimum necessary to allow Parliament to take a proper considered view of the Government's very radical reductions in the rights of those who apply for entry into this country.

The key to whether the new system will work is the quality of initial decision making. At the moment, almost no one has much confidence that that is up to the task. I dare say that even the Minister, in his more honest private moments, wonders whether it is.

The assurance given by the Government throughout the debates, and again this afternoon, has been that the new points-based system, which they have now published, makes everything so transparent and easy for applicants and their sponsors that the world will change and difficulties will melt away. Again, privately, in his honest moments, the Minister will understand why those who have regular contact with the immigration system in this country will be profoundly sceptical about the optimism shown by the Government on that issue.

In this debate we will wish to confine ourselves to the issues that make reporting back vital. The Minister will be aware that many people still find huge flaws in the operation of the system. As I said, the quality of decisions is the key to this matter. Last year, 53 per cent. of appeals against refusals of entry clearance were allowed. It is worth dwelling on that figure. It is more likely than not that if someone appeals against a refusal, they will be successful. The initial decisions are slightly more likely to be wrong than right. I cannot imagine many areas of public policy where we would regard that as an acceptable initial performance—[Interruption.] As ever, the Minister has gone back into chuntering mode. If he wishes to challenge the figures, I am sure that he can do so.

Throughout the debates in both Houses, it has been clear that there is profound dissatisfaction with the entry clearance system. The Minister is trying to assure us that the new points-based system will resolve all that. At best, the verdict will have to be "not proven", because he has not got the new system in place yet. The degree of scepticism shown by everyone involved in the process is entirely right.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Sitting in my surgery and listening to the people who come in and say that their applications have been refused, I wonder about the standard of consistency between decisions. I hope that this system will make things slightly better.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

My hon. Friend makes one of the many good points that are made by those who suffer under the current system: the quality of decision making seems to be hugely variable, depending on from which entry post the applications are originally made. That is shown in the statistics as well. Some of them have much higher rates of successful appeals than others. One can only assume that that reflects a variable quality of initial decision making. It is impossible to imagine that it reflects anything else.

The Government's point is that the new system is better because it will be much more objective and transparent. Good—let us hope that that happens. However, as the Minister himself said in Committee:

"100 per cent. objectivity is a fool's errand . . . It is not about simply ticking boxes and adding points up, although that is a large part of the measure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 October 2005; c. 116.]

He is absolutely right about that. The system will not be 100 per cent. objective. Subjectivity will still come in, so if the new system is to inspire more confidence and perform better than the existing system, it is essential that everyone can be confident that the people making the decisions, which will still be subjective in part, are up to the job. That is one of the key reasons why it is vital that we review the system after a few years.

The other key point was made at length by the outgoing independent monitor, Fiona Lindsley, who has been extensively quoted in the debates on the issue. Talking about the system and referring to the fact that 37 per cent. of appellants were successful in paper-based appeals, she said, "That is pretty damning." The Minister is famously contemptuous of everyone who disagrees with him, but I hope that he will take an independent monitor seriously, especially as she pointed out that the National Audit Office broadly agreed with her assessment of the system. If she thinks that the system is inadequate and the National Audit Office thinks that it is inadequate, it is not unreasonable for other people to think the same.

One could have many serious reservations about what the Government are doing, and I congratulate their lordships on producing a way in which the House, the other place—and, indeed, anyone involved in the system—can come back in a few years to find out whether the Minister's optimism was justified. I hope that it will be justified, but I fear that it will not.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Again, I do not need to take long. I entirely welcome the fact that the amendment was moved and accepted in the other place and that the Minister is accepting it today. The amendment represents a small move towards effective post-legislative scrutiny. It is hardly a revolutionary step in that direction, but at least it gives us a yardstick by which we can measure the performance of the system in future years. I do not think that that measure will be enough to let us make a proper assessment, so I hope that the relevant Select Committees will examine the performance of the system carefully, using the report as their basis. I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) that the success rate of appeals is a crude indicator, but it certainly suggests that there is a limit to the accuracy of the present assessment procedures. That, at the very least, gives us an indicator of where we should be looking.

Proposed new subsection (3)(g), in Lords amendment No. 6, which reads "may record opinions", is especially valid because it will allow not just the accumulation of numerical data, but impressions to be sought and given about the way in which the system is working. When the Minister talks about stakeholders—many of us have difficulties with that term as a concept—I hope that he is not referring simply to the usual suspects and the obvious organisations that might have a prepared opinion, whether that is on immigration, legal matters or business. I hope that the group will also include those who are directly affected, either as users, or perhaps as individuals in the small business sector. The Minister will know that there are specific concerns about the recruitment of staff in ethnic restaurants.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

As the hon. Gentleman has covered the point, I do not need to go on about all the ethnic restaurants in the United Kingdom. However, I put it to him that when we examine the overall spread of immigration decisions, it is important that we consider the robustness and effectiveness of entry clearance decisions. It is not just a question of the Home Office getting things right. If the review process shows that changes have to be made regarding decisions on posts abroad, they should be implemented.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I could not agree more. When I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we examined closely consular activities and procedures in the sub-continent of India and Pakistan. I hope that we made constructive comments about the arrangements that were in place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, welcome the amendment and hope that we will examine carefully how the system works in the future.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

There is little to come back on. I thank hon. Members for their comments. The Bill will be improved by the amendment, which we are happy to accept. I shall not dwell on the undue provocation of casual empiricism at length from the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I forgive him that, given that he is new in his post, but much of what he said was complete nonsense and factually inaccurate, and it would not stand up in the gentlest of winds. However, in the spirit of emollition and scrutiny—

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Be specific.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I will be specific at length afterwards, but I do not want to waste people's time now, as the hon. Gentleman did. In the broader spirit, rather than in my normal spirit, I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 15 — Penalty

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

These amendments are all, in the main, fairly minor and technical. Some go to points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; here, rather than elsewhere, we move from negative to affirmative procedure with some of the order-making powers, especially in amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Some dwell on—legalistic purists might demur at this—the issue of effluxion of time, which might be better put into English in the Bill, so it duly is, in amendment No. 15. Many of the other provisions simply repeat these technicalities or go to some of the consequences that should be reflected from the Equality Bill. I know that people always bristle and become deeply suspicious when a Minister contends that a series of amendments is minor and technical. They scurry off and read them in great detail, because they having the feeling that the Minister is trying to hide something. I can assure the House that in this instance all the amendments before us, which were agreed to by the other place, are entirely acceptable to the Government. In that spirit, I ask the House to accept the amendments.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I will not bombard the Minister with any more facts, because I know that under the bluster he is a sensitive flower who dislikes facts that he finds uncomfortable being put forward. However, I shall ask him a question. Unusually, I am happy to accept his assurance that the amendments before us are largely technical. Despite all the evidence, I wish to believe him on this matter.

The amendments are clearly designed to remove some of the ambiguities in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether he thinks that the amendments are sufficient to cope with public sector employers who fall foul of the Bill. For example, what penalty would fall on an NHS hospital trust that employed a chef who did not have leave to remain? Clearly that will be one of the practical effects of the legislation. We know that the NHS—it is probably the best example—is the biggest employer of immigrant labour in this country. The amendments seem to be designed, and rightly so, to catch private sector employers who are breaking the law. However, there is ambiguity about how the provisions affect the public sector, particularly that part of it which is undifferentiated. Will this be at trust level or at general NHS level? [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for his desire to intervene.

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

Order. Before the Minister intervenes, I must say that none of the amendments relates to the public sector.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not sure whether to continue with my intervention or to begin it again.

The law in this instance, in this set of amendments and in this area generally relates to employers, period. There is no differentiation or distinction under the law.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I believe that to be the case. I apologise if I was misinterpreting the amendments. My understanding was the same as the Minister's, which is that they apply to employers whether in the public or the private sector. I assume that the Minister is saying that the effect on private and public sector employers will be the same.

I shall ask the Minister a specific question about the NHS. It seems that people can be employees of a hospital trust or of a primary care trust, but within that there is some genuine ambiguity about what will be the relevant authority.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the number of changes to immigration law that have affected employers over the past few years. Does he agree that it is incumbent upon the Government to make employers aware of these changes? I know that the Minister has talked about the various seminars that he has attended on the changes being proposed to managed migration. It is important that employers, particularly small businesses, are made aware of what is happening. The penalties are extremely severe.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Like him, I have had meetings with trade groups, particularly from the restaurant trade, who make the point that many of their members feel remote from legislation and find it difficult to access information. They are therefore vulnerable when legislation is changed and the changes have a serious effect on their business. If the Minister is saying that there is no possible ambiguity I welcome his reassurance. However, perhaps we should deal with the matter privately in correspondence, as I believe that ambiguities remain in the Lords amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The fact that the Lords amendments are silent about sectors does not in itself make them unclear or unintelligible, but does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made a good point about the need to provide clarity for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises? The onus is on Ministers, not to ask companies to come to a seminar—frankly a small business does not have the time to attend seminars—but to ensure that a pithy and distilled summary is sent at Government expense to employers who want to comply but may not know how to.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

That is right. Clearly, there are problems that affect small businesses in the private sector, especially those run by members of ethnic minority populations, so the Government have a significant duty to act. I am concerned that there is a dichotomy between the way in which the private and public sectors are affected by the Lords amendments. I hope that the Minister will try to reassure me that there is absolutely no difference and that there is no ambiguity in the Bill's provision as they affect parts of the public sector.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Briefly, may I reinforce the point made by the hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Ashford (Damian Green)? I appreciate the enormous amount of time and effort that the Minister devotes to these matters. He works assiduously on behalf of his constituency, and he is known throughout the wider Asian community as a champion of the ethnic minorities community, so that record makes it easier for him to introduce tough legislation on immigration.

I urge the Government, however, to take enormous care with the Bill's provisions, as there have been huge changes in immigration law in the nine years in which they have been in office. The House understands why they have decided to introduce those changes. The problem is partly inherited, but it is also caused by the huge number of people who have come to the country in the past 10 years or so seeking asylum, and by the large number of cases that have been turned down.

Enforcement is an issue, too. I have many ethnic minority businesses in my constituency, as do the Minister and other hon. Members, and genuine employers are under enormous pressure. As the hon. Member for Buckingham said, although we welcome the seminars and discussions offered by the Minister, employers find it difficult to find the time to attend those meetings. I fully support the proposal to issue a clear document to those businesses precisely to explain the changes in the law, so that there is no concern on their part that they may be acting unlawfully. They do not have time to attend seminars, or the resources to employ solicitors. I declare an interest, because my wife is an immigration solicitor—although I am not touting for business on her behalf. It is an expensive business, and it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the information is provided to such employers. I hope very much that that can be done.

I remember that when he was Minister for Europe, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he could reduce the whole of the European constitution to, I think, 50 words. I do not know how, but if he could do that with the European constitution, the Government could make a real effort so that employers understand the enormous changes that will occur as a result of the Bill.

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

Order. I was anxious not to cut off the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in mid-speech, but this is not intended to be a general debate on clauses 15 to 26. It is about six specific Lords amendments. Also, when we have a timed motion before us, as we have now, there is a temptation and a tendency to stroll through the early amendments, and then we find the House galloping frantically towards the end. I hope that that will not happen to us today.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I particularly welcome your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as there is a risk of our not reaching some important business. We had a useful diversion into the dissemination of information to businesses, which is extremely important but is not the matter before us. If businesses are not sure of the law, that will act as a deterrent to the employment of people whose immigration status is unclear in the mind of an employer.

The Minister invited us to accept his assurance that the amendments were technical. I have not the slightest intention of accepting an assurance from the Minister that amendments are ever technical. What I am prepared to do is look at the amendments and take a view. My view is that the amendments are technical, and welcome.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

rose—

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

Order. I have been calling the Minister routinely, but as we are dealing with Lords amendments, he will need the leave of the House if he wishes to respond. There is no automatic need for him to respond.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the leave of the House, and at the risk of challenging the Deputy Speaker's exhortation, I shall respond to a couple of points. First, there is no ambiguity. I want to make that clear. The provision is about the legal contract between employer and employee. There is no distinction between public and private employers. Secondly, I take the points that hon. Members have made and plans will be put in place. When changing the law, it is incumbent on Government to make sure that information is disseminated throughout the sectors affected, even those that are hard to get at, such as small businesses generally and those in the ethnic community specifically.

I am firmly convinced that at some stage in the very near future, there will be time for a consolidated asylum and immigration miscellaneous provisions Bill, but now is not the time. I commend the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 34 — Offence

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

The House will be happy to know that again, the Government accept the Lords amendment. Again—although I advise Members to check for themselves—it is a minor and technical amendment, which clarifies the nature of an offence when a person in Scotland refuses to comply with English or Welsh police information requested under e-borders. That is entirely routine and simply tidies up the provisions and takes account of the Scottish dimension. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that was a stroll.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 — Accommodation

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

There has been a misunderstanding about Lords amendment No. 18 and section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. To make it clear what we are talking about, I remind hon. Members that section 4 of the 1999 Act applies to people who have had their asylum claims refused, who have lost their appeals, who have reached the end of the process and who have agreed that they will leave the UK when it is possible for them to do so, which is a condition of receiving support under section 4. In some cases, people have signed up to say that they will leave the UK when it is possible for them to do so, not because they really want to leave, but because that is the only way in which they can get any support. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people covered by section 4 are receiving support because the Home Office accepts that it is not possible to return them to their countries of origin at this time.

Last year, the number of people covered by section 4 rose to 7,000. Many of them were failed asylum seekers from northern Iraq, but there were also significant numbers of people who were originally from Zimbabwe and whom it was impossible to remove for obvious reasons—other countries that were heavily represented include Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia. Although the Home Office would say that people covered by section 4 are about to leave the United Kingdom, the reality is that people are and will be on section 4 for significant periods of time, so the provision is not necessarily just for a week or two.

The Lords amendment and my amendment to it address the issue of vouchers. Some of the discussion has not been clear, and some people outside this House have not realised that people who are covered by section 4 now are getting support in vouchers. Section 4 allows for accommodation and food, and if people are getting food that is not provided in their living accommodation, then they are getting it through vouchers. The Home Office accepts that that system has not been working satisfactorily—we debated that point in Committee—because it does not cover people's other essential needs.

I have seen people who were on section 4 and who could not get on the bus to see their solicitor, because they did not have any money or a voucher to allow them to travel on the bus. Other people have been issued with vouchers that can be used only at a particular supermarket that is two or three miles away from where they live, and they have no way to get there other than walking. The Lords amendment seeks to address some of those points, and there is no doubt that it would improve the current situation, because it provides vouchers that can be exchanged for goods and services as well as for accommodation and food. Will the Minister clarify whether, for example, bus passes will be included among those goods and services to allow people to travel?

We know that there are fundamental problems with voucher systems from our experience when all asylum seekers were expected to use vouchers. Expense is one such issue, because it is more expensive to distribute vouchers than money. Furthermore, vouchers ended up being sold for cash under the old system, and they often cannot be used in the most convenient places and cannot necessarily be used in the cheapest places. If I were looking to buy cheap food in the area of London that I represent, I would not go to the supermarket. I would go to Walthamstow market, especially towards the end of the day when the traders are trying to get rid of stuff cheap before the market closes. That would be much cheaper than going to the supermarket, but people who live on vouchers do not have that option.

The fundamental objection to vouchers is simple. The people involved may be failed asylum seekers, who are being supported until such time as they are expected to leave the country, but they are still human beings. We should therefore think about the simple issue of human dignity. Having to survive on vouchers is stigmatising and humiliating. I suppose that none of us has ever had that experience, but we should try to imagine what it would be like to try to exist for even a day or two without any cash—without a penny to buy a drink or newspaper. It must be humiliating to live like that for weeks and months on end.

I welcome the fact that the Government have responded positively to some of the problems that were identified in section 4 when it meant that people could get only accommodation and food. Amendment No. 18 includes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow vouchers to be exchanged for goods and services, and I hope that that will include travel. The amendment specifically forbids a regulation to be made that allows people to be supplied with money. The effect of amendment (a) would be to remove the word "not" in that provision. It is a modest amendment. I would prefer it if vouchers were removed entirely, but my amendment would not force the Government to give out cash, but allow them the option to do so.

I do not understand why the Government will resist my amendment. What will happen if amendment No. 18 is not amended and it then turns out that it is not possible to meet all people's needs through vouchers? The National Asylum Support Service says—as it did about section 4—that it will not work. If the Government wished to make a change to the system because it was not working, they would need more primary legislation. However, if the Government accept amendment (a) they would have the option. It would provide the flexibility to make changes through secondary legislation without having to resort to more primary legislation. The amendment would not do away with vouchers or force the Government to give out cash.

In a later amendment, the Government have accepted a similar argument in relation to section 9 of the 2004 Act. That amendment will give the power to introduce secondary legislation to repeal section 9. That is obviously intended to be used if it becomes apparent that section 9 is not working. I would therefore argue that my amendment's impact on section 4 would be exactly the same.

When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister said:

"I do not know if we can address the matter in the Bill, as it is more about practicalities than any point of statutory substance or import, but I am happy to consider it further."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 October 2005; c. 234.]

I would suggest that my amendment is very practical and straightforward, and I do not understand why it should be resisted. It would not remove from the Government the option of doing what they intend, but would make it possible to move away from vouchers, which is what some of us would ideally like.

An early-day motion on this issue has been signed by 55 hon. Members, including 27 Labour Members. I suspect that there is no chance of the parliamentary arithmetic being with us on this amendment. However, I hope that the Government will give my proposal serious consideration, because it offers a way of dealing with some of the criticisms of section 4 and of the Lords amendment, but leaves them with the flexibility to change in future if necessary.

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

I call Mr. David Heath.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Do you mean me, Sir?

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

You are Mr. David Heath?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am sorry, but I did not hear whether you said my name or Mr. Green's.

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

It is a bit difficult for the Chair to decide who to call if everybody who wants to address the House does not stand quickly. I call Mr. Damian Green.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak principally to amendment (b), which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), but I also wish to comment on the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).

As our amendment is carefully modelled on amendment No. 6, which has been agreed between the two Front Benches in another place, I have high hopes that the Minister will accept it. He will agree that the argument over vouchers is a delicate one. I have been following his correspondence in various newspapers with those who are flatly against his scheme and his argument that it will not make much difference and will not be a voucher scheme. He has clearly failed to convince the hon. Member for Walthamstow, among others. I am sure that the House will be waiting to hear how he deals with that issue.

Although I do not agree with all the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, he raises valid points, particularly as regards people from Zimbabwe, who are in a very difficult situation. The Government, rightly, do not wish to return them to Zimbabwe even if they have failed in their application for asylum. That gives rise to practical problems as to how they are to continue living in a decent and civilised way in this country.

One of the questions that the Government have not answered adequately concerns the cost of such a voucher scheme. They have tried voucher schemes before and scrapped them before. A previous Home Secretary conceded that the voucher scheme that operated previously was unworkable and unfair. Having come to that conclusion once, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why the current scheme is going to be workable and fair and, while he does so, what, in broad terms, he thinks that the costs will be.

That question may be impossible to answer because the Government have no idea of how long many people will be forced to wait until they can be returned to their own country. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, the phrase, "about to leave", is a term of art that appears to cover not just days or weeks but in some cases months and years. Clearly, a system designed to cope with the needs of those who may be here for a few weeks will not serve those who might be here for years. The hon. Member for Walthamstow and the Refugee Council have made that point, which is central to the argument.

Nevertheless, I should make it clear that Conservative Members have no objection in principle to vouchers, provided that the system is workable and fair. However, we recognise the possibility of inefficiency and waste, which may lead to hardship for some vulnerable people. We have tabled amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 18 in the hope that it gives the Government a decent escape route, not least from the criticism that the Minister is receiving from Labour Members. I am sure that he sincerely believes that the voucher system will not cause the unfairness and hardship that some Labour Members claim, so the Government should, at the very least, enable Parliament to receive a full report on its working in three years.

If the Minister will listen, I am about to praise him. A few moments ago, he made a sensible comment about parliamentary scrutiny and using the Bill to enhance Parliament's ability to revisit legislation that it has passed. He was right to say that the lack of that ability is a common failing of our legislation. That is why amendment (b) tries to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate whether the new system causes genuine hardship and to have the Government justify their actions if they need justification. The terms of the amendment allow that to happen earlier if there is an immediate crisis or if the Government want a convenient vehicle to enable them to change the policy.

Even if the scheme proves perfectly practical and the Government want to continue with it, the requirement to report back on its day-to-day workings will act as a spur to Ministers to check what is happening. The Minister knows that many bodies that object to that sort of scheme concentrate precisely on which shops can take the vouchers and the range of goods to which they apply. The nitty-gritty, day-to-day details will make the difference in some cases between fairness and unfairness and hardship and lack of hardship.

I agree with the Minister that reporting back on the scheme is important. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. The long-term solution is not to have a system that keeps thousands of people in limbo for years. Since that happy prospect is many years away, I commend amendment (b) to the House, as a modest improvement to managing the current failing system, and I hope that it will satisfy hon. Members from all sides of the debate.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I commend the passionate and articulate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has spent many years considering the relevant issues. Few of us have as much experience as he. The way in which he presented the argument was correct.

The amendment is about the practical implications of the scheme. I am against the voucher scheme and I commend the trade unions who fought so hard to get the Government to reverse their decision to reintroduce vouchers. We did not need to reintroduce them, but they are there. The Government will not be pilloried in the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday or The Sun if they give in on the point. That is sometimes a consideration for those in government, though happily not the Minister.

Amendment (a) will cover the practical complaints that have been made to me in my surgery by many hundreds of people who provide anecdotal evidence of what they face when they use the vouchers. I have never been in a supermarket queue when someone has had to produce those vouchers—indeed, I have never seen one. However, like other hon. Members, I hear every Friday about the practical difficulties that people face. Treating people as human beings, with dignity, is important, especially given the current climate.

I appear on a website that states that I am a Member of Parliament who hardly ever rebels and that I am a serial loyalist. However, I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow if he presses amendment (a) to a Division and, if he does not, any party that wishes to do that. In all conscience, it is the right thing to do.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), which he pitched exactly right. Lords amendment No. 18, which forms the basis for this group of amendments, is a welcome move. It extends the provision of support and, in normal circumstances, we would be hanging out the flags for that reason. Unfortunately, however, the provision is flawed by the decision to offer that support only through the voucher system. We know what vouchers do; we have gone through all that already.

The Government have made it clear that the voucher system, when used for a large number of people, was ineffective and uneconomic and, more importantly, that it had a serious effect on the recipients in terms not only of the range of opportunities that it offered for buying goods and services but of the stigmatising effect that it had on the individuals presenting the vouchers in a local shop or business. That presents considerable dangers for community relations, because it clearly labels people—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It exists now.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Yes, and we are against it existing now, but it does. I have not said, as some have done, that this provision would be a reintroduction of the system. We know that it is not a reintroduction but an extension. However, we now have the opportunity to provide a better route for the growing number of people who are in this position. I accept the contention that they will be leaving the country after a short period, but the practical fact is that sometimes they do not. We have to accept that they are often stuck here for a considerable amount of time, for reasons beyond their or the Government's control.

I am struck by the modesty of the proposal of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, to which my hon. Friends and I are happy to put our names. It would not require the Minister to move to a cash system; it would simply give him the opportunity to do so. The alternative amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would provide some benefit in that it would allow the situation to be monitored and reported on, but it would not provide a vehicle for the Government to change their mind in the face of the evidence that had been collected. There would be no primary legislative ability in the Act to enable the provision of cash rather than vouchers—indeed, that is specifically prohibited by the Bill. If the hon. Member for Ashford feels that his amendment is sensible, in that it gives the Government the ability to reflect on the performance of the scheme, he should logically also support amendment (a), which would give the Minister the capacity in primary legislation to correct any error in order to meet the requirements.

I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press his amendment to a Division, because this is an important issue of principle on which the House should have a voice. If he does not wish to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I make it clear that we do? We shall object to any proposal to withdraw the amendment and we shall seek the opinion of the House on this matter, because it is a matter of principle. It relates to how we should deal effectively and humanely with people who are in our care in this country, and this is not an argument that we should run away from.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was inspired by compassion and delivered with eloquence. I do not want to embarrass him unduly, but this is one of those occasions on which people can come together, because we are agreed on the principle at stake. I, too, in common with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press his amendment to a Division, and if he or others do, I am strongly minded to support it.

Let us be clear. As the Minister who is engaged in the public debate well knows and has already acknowledged, vouchers are not new. They are not only not new in the sense that they have applied to a certain category, section 4 recipients—failed asylum seekers—since April 2005—they are not new in another sense, in that, as he will acknowledge, they have applied before. I believe and, in fairness, the Minister believes—I raise these issues in a positive spirit—that the Government were right to remove vouchers across the piece in 2002. It is relevant to the public debate to recall what was said at that time, by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Announcing the intention to remove vouchers for asylum seekers more generally, he said that those vouchers were

"too slow, vulnerable to fraud, and felt to be unfair".—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 627.]

He was right.

Yes, the debate has moved on since then, and the Government have decided, for reasons that I think are scarcely intelligible let alone defensible, that voucher provisions should apply to a very limited category of persons—the section 4 cases, people whose applications for asylum have failed and who are destined eventually to go back to the countries from which they have come. They are not going back at this stage, because there is an impediment to them doing so—it would not be safe for them to travel. That might be because the country to which they would have to return is unsafe and they would be at risk of imprisonment, torture, death or a grisly combination of all three, or it might be that they cannot travel for the more prosaic but equally important reason that they are unwell or, in the case of a woman, pregnant.

In those circumstances, it is true that for virtually a year now those people have received voucher support to the tune of £35 a week. We all know the cases of people who have been affected. My anxiety about what the Government are doing is that it seems to me that Ministers are unnecessarily closing down the options. I am always ready to joust with the Minister of State, as he knows, and to listen to the points that he makes, but I have not yet heard a persuasive argument. I found the case made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the Refugee Council compelling.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's speech. He is becoming increasing liberal on these issues, which is good. May I urge him to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), because surely this is the sort of issue on which all the Opposition parties should be encouraging the Government to change their position if we are really to have a Conservative party that has changed and to put the maximum pressure on the Government?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is being unduly cheeky at this hour of the day. Rome was not built in a day. I yield to none in my admiration for the scale of the transformation of the Conservative and Unionist party that has already been brought about, in a very short time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). If the hon. Gentleman seeks to egg me on, he must be mindful that he will be tempting me to stray from the disciplines of order. I would incur your wrath, or at any rate your furrowed brow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am not minded to do so, even when tempted so sedulously by the hon. Gentleman.

I have three simple concerns. First, to cut to the chase, the hon. Member for Walthamstow is right that the use of vouchers has a stigmatising effect. To try to decide whether we think that that argument is correct, let us for a moment imagine ourselves, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) did, in the position of someone using the voucher, standing in a queue in Tesco. If hon. Members ask me whether I have seen that myself in Tesco in Buckingham, I admit that I have not. I am conscious, however, that there will be right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House who have witnessed it.

I do not want to be discourteous, but, with great respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), it is a very serious point. For those people in those queues, experiencing stigmatisation, feeling embarrassed and anxious and finding themselves on the receiving end of hostility, it is not a laughing matter. They are waiting to pay for goods. Use of the voucher can lead to delay and, not surprisingly, that causes irritation among other people who are waiting. What could send a more obvious signal that someone is different than the fact that, unlike everyone else who is paying by cash or card, the failed asylum seeker is having to use a voucher?

That is very unfortunate and undesirable. Whether it actually constitutes a breach of human rights is, I accept, arguable. What I would say to the Minister is that it is a very notable and unnecessary unkindness and it reflects a meanness of spirit that is unworthy of the Government. Although the Minister of State has long been determined to prove himself the Labour party's answer to my noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, the truth is that on these issues he is a humanitarian. I do not want to embarrass him—I know that he is always embarrassed when he is complimented by a Conservative Member—but at heart he is a humanitarian on these issues. He has championed the cause of fairness in immigration and asylum policy over a long period. Although I think that there are serious weaknesses in aspects of government policy, he is not fundamentally a bad guy on these issues, and I ask him to think about those individuals in that queue.

There is a related point affecting someone with a voucher in the queue. In the operation of the vouchers to date, there has been ambiguity over what the voucher can purchase. If the Minister can assure me that that will not be so in the future, I shall be delighted, but I shall want firm guarantees and explicit details. In many cases, in given stores it has fallen to the check-out assistant to judge whether the voucher can be used to purchase, for example, nappies. My view—and I hope that I command assent for this proposition in all parts of the House—is that it is unfair on both the failed asylum seeker and the check-out assistant for that situation to arise.

In so far as the Government have said that they want to introduce greater flexibility, recognise the need for additional support and can see that the operation of the system over the past 11 months has contained flaws, I welcome that, but I want to know what particular commitments they will make. It is wrong that someone using vouchers who is on section 4 support should have to make the invidious choice whether to use a voucher for travel—if that opportunity will exist—or for purchasing food. We need to be sure that the vouchers will be sufficiently flexible and adequately generous to allow for all the necessities of life on which those people, no less than ourselves, depend.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The hon. Gentleman says that, if the vouchers are the only method of obtaining goods or services, they should be required to be sufficiently flexible. However, they cannot be sufficiently flexible to be used, for instance, in a coin-operated machine in a launderette. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), which simply allows cash to be given in certain circumstances, would deal with that purely practical problem.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I was trying to be as fair to the Government as possible, but I agree with the purport of the amendment, as I said at the outset. Cash should be an option. As he will know and others can testify, a further weakness of the system is that it is not possible—consistent with the principle of not allowing failed asylum seekers to have cash—to obtain change for them. That means, to be blunt, that the failed asylum seeker, who is often poor to the point of destitution, is literally and calculatedly short-changed by the existing system. Moreover, although I am happy to champion the cause of legitimate capitalist enterprise, I see no reason whatsoever why a big or store—or even, for that matter, a small one—should effectively profiteer at the expense of a failed asylum seeker who has scarcely two brass farthings, to employ the old-fashioned expression, to rub together.

I want to conclude on the very practical point that the Government have often raised. Ministers have said, "Well, we've got to be clear about this. Yes, people need to be supported, but on the other hand we cannot allow scope for a pull factor that will draw people to this country." The suggestion from Ministers—not, in my view, evidence-based—has been that the ability to use cash in this context would constitute a pull factor. My response is as follows. First, in 2000 and 2001, when the Government used the previous vouchers, applications actually went up, so the notion that the use of vouchers is itself a deterrent factor likely to conduce to a reduction in applications is not supported by the empirical evidence acquired to date.

Secondly, by virtue of the section 4 criteria themselves, it simply cannot be true that possessing cash constitutes a pull factor bringing people here. It has already been decided of people in receipt of section 4 support that they are unsuccessful applicants, and they have accepted the reality that they will have to return to their country of origin in due course. The notion that having cash can cause them to stay, and that the absence of cash would prevent that eventuality, seems logically flawed.

I say to Ministers and colleagues in a constructive spirit that we have a view from another quarter on this subject in the 2000 report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On the pull factor, the high commissioner has declared, on the record, that in deciding whether to come here as asylum applicants, people are more likely to be swayed by the presence of their own communities than by reception conditions or benefits. The Minister said earlier from a sedentary position—I am being very fair, because by mentioning his sedentary I am making it more audible than it would otherwise have been—that the high commissioner was talking about the old vouchers. If, when the Minister winds up, he can provide a compelling thesis in support of his policy, I will be happy to be influenced by it. I have not seen anything so far from the Government to suggest that that is very likely. He knows that I agree with other aspects of Government immigration policy, a good deal of which is thoroughly sensible and measured and in the national interest. So far, this measure has not been well crafted. I much prefer retaining flexibility and I applaud the noble spirit behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the very welcome remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), although I hope to be much briefer than he was to allow the Minister time to conclude this part of the debate.

Members made important comments on the stigma that can attach to asylum seekers in the operation of a voucher scheme. My hon. Friend said that vouchers are vulnerable to fraud. That comment struck me, because if vouchers are vulnerable to fraud, cash is even more vulnerable. Indeed, asylum seekers dealt with under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, if they are in possession of cash, could become even more vulnerable. They could be preyed on by those who are aware that they have cash and who might seek to exploit that situation. In addition, this is an emotive and sensitive matter, as cash payments could be exploited by those wanting to stir up and magnify racist feelings in this country.

A balance has to be struck in respect of the scheme's operational practicalities. I think that it is right to keep cash out of the scheme, but the review of its operation should determine whether the anomalies pointed out by hon. Members of all parties arise. That is why I support amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and not amendment (a).

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Whether or not I agree with them, there have been some excellent contributions to the debate. With due respect to the last speaker, I shall deal with the comments made by the grown-ups. What he said was not helpful and without substance one way or the other.

I shall begin by clearing up a couple of canards. It is not true that some people covered by section 4 would be tortured if they were returned home. By definition, they are failed asylum seekers and, whatever the reasons for their removal, there is no reason to fear that they would suffer torture or any other mistreatment specified by the refugee convention. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned that there might be difficulties with the safety of the removal process, among other things, and I accept that. In addition, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that problems may arise in connection with people who suffer under section 4 for a long period of time. Initially, section 4 was designed to cover people pending removal and to apply for a day, a month or some other period, but the details of that provision are not germane to this debate.

There has been a good deal of background noise to this discussion. It is fundamentally wrong to conduct a disingenuous debate about the reintroduction of vouchers, and bodies such as Oxfam, the T and G union and the Refugee Council should know better, as that is not what the Government propose. I concur 100 per cent. with the reasons behind the decision some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to get rid of the universal use of vouchers by all asylum seekers. That matter belongs to an entirely different debate. The Government believe that the cash-based regime applicable to all people going through the asylum process should be distinct from the process endured by those receiving section 4 support, as such people have exhausted all the legal processes, including appeals, and have no right to remain in this country.

The starting point is that vouchers have always been a feature of the support for people covered by section 4, but we should go back to first principles. Where possible, section 4 support consists of the provision of full board and accommodation. It is not true that the people involved get a mere pittance in vouchers, and no more. The hon. Member for Buckingham suggested that destitution awaited them otherwise, but that is not the reality. The fact is that, when people covered by section 4 cannot get full board and accommodation where they are located, the difference is made up by means of vouchers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, the law provides for vouchers to be given in lieu of full support and accommodation only when that entitlement cannot be provided. The vouchers also cover the bare essentials when it comes to toiletries, but that is not enough. I come bearing gifts, albeit perhaps only in one hand rather than both, recognising those points and extending the system in response to the serious concerns expressed. We are broadening the system to provide things in kind, which are not currently allowed under the regulation, such as the bus pass to get to an urgent medical appointment, to which my hon. Friend referred, and broader goods and services.

Concern has been expressed that the narrow definition of food and essential toiletries could be extended to cover everything possible. The definition will be made clearer in regulations, but it will certainly cover nappies and other essential goods for new mothers, where there has been confusion, about which a fair point was made. However, apart from that specific context, it is wrong to apply the worst elements of the previous universal voucher system to these proposals. That is absolutely wrong. Those who provide section 4 support give vouchers as part of their contract when they cannot provide full board and accommodation, so there is no further cost—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). To ask for regular reports on costs and on what constitute wider goods and services is entirely redundant. The asylum statistics already include quarterly reports on costs and numbers, so all the elements under amendment (b) that he set out so eloquently are utterly unnecessary; they are already being done or are about to be done. Amendment (b) is unnecessary.

We think that the current position under section 4 is about right in terms of expanding and broadening support. By the way, it is not the case that thousands of people are languishing under section 4 support. Many of those who have returned voluntarily—principally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow suggested, to northern Iraq—were on section 4. About 700 northern Iraqis have already left the UK under the voluntary return scheme. I could not swear for every one of them, but the core of them were under section 4, so it is wrong to say that section 4 support locks people in limbo and that they cannot go anywhere, in any way, shape or form, and that they live in penury and destitution. I do not pretend that the regime under which they live is terribly pleasant—it is meant to be temporary, although I take the point about longevity. Although we accept the Lords amendments, we understand the limitations due to the narrow focus of the current regulations.

I do not take my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow's point, as suggested in his amendment, that we may have the option to take the cash route under section 4. We do not think that is appropriate, because we want the narrow, narrow cohort of failed asylum seekers to be controlled and managed under the existing regime. Yes, we want to broaden the scheme, not least to take into account his comments about the need for proper support, but amendment (a) goes too far.

Due to the limitations of the regime that has been in place since April, I commend to the House the broadening of support to cover things in kind and goods and services, as defined in regulation. I assure the House, and certainly my hon. Friends, that that will cover things such as bus passes for serious and necessary appointments and all the points made about lack of definition such as where essential toiletries finish and other elements begin. However, for the robustness and integrity of the system, it is right and proper that people on section 4 support, who have exhausted all avenues and have no substantive legal right to remain in the country, should, as a prelude to their departure, be on a different regime to those who are still going through the system. The new targeted contracts, under the National Asylum Support Service, will afford people support and dignity while the section 4 regime prevails and we concentrate more on their removal.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome the broadening of support, but still feel that the rather arbitrary prohibition—for that is what it is—on the use of cash is unnecessarily restrictive. Will the Minister explain precisely how the use of such a small sum of cash could constitute a pull factor?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman will know that I have been very careful in my words and I have not discussed pull factors in the context of the Lords amendment. I would turn things around to say that it is desirable for our asylum system to have a distinct regime of support for those who have exhausted all the elements—appeal, legal process and everything else—and are ready to go at whatever stage of readiness, as hon. Members have suggested. We do not demur from the fact that there must be such support—in a past life, not the hon. Gentleman, but the Conservative party would have demurred even from that—but it must be right that the preparation for departure and removal involves a different regime from that used for those who are still going through the system. That was the substance of the objection to vouchers for everyone that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so rightly got rid of in the terms that were suggested. We think that the regimes should be different.

I am not convinced that adding cash beyond the extension of support that we are already offering goes any further to provide the support that section 4 applicants need while they are waiting between the exhaustion of all their appeals and their departure. I repeat that the starting premise is that, where possible under the NASS contracts, they get full board and accommodation. Some hon. Members—not the hon. Member for Buckingham or my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—have suggested that those people somehow start in penury and destitution and that, as a sign of good will, we should give them a few bob and a voucher. That is not the case. A proper, comprehensive support mechanism is in place, as there should be, for those individuals. It is not their fault that, for whatever reason, they have exhausted the application process and no longer have legal rights to remain, but they must go and they should not be in penury just because of that. We suggest that such support, added to by vouchers where full board and accommodation cannot be provided, is far too narrow.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I want to place on record the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. We understand the Government's argument. We understand the way that the Minister has handled the issue and the concessions that have been made and we are grateful to the Government for them. The Minister has taken a thoughtful approach, but we are concerned about why the Government are closing down the option at this stage. To be honest, most of us have found from our surgeries that the minor things display dignity or the lack of dignity and humanity or the lack of humanity: the child who cannot take in 50p for the school trip, or the parent who cannot buy their child a cup of tea when they are out shopping, because they have not got the cash. Such things will not be covered by vouchers and the other means of support. I realise that the system may apply for a limited period before people leave the country, but we cannot understand the Government's attempt to end that expression of humanity to those people and not to offer them that opportunity.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Again, I would reverse the argument. Under the NASS contracts, a substantive package of support is provided to those who find that they require section 4 support. Such support is supposed to be all-embracing—and to the extent that it can be, it is—for the duration of the time before people depart. The fact that that cannot always be so led to vouchers and some additional support for food or essential toiletries. Given not least the remarks made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, a range of issues have been raised about such support being far too narrow, even in the context of the broad package of support under section 4. That is why we have moved to providing support in kind, as well as by vouchers, with goods and services, rather than using the narrow definition of food and accommodation. That basket of support is available. That is right and proper. Equally, underlying that—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I will give way in a moment. It would be useful to let me finish the sentence.

Equally, underlying that, we are trying—again, this is outwith the Lords amendment—with the new targeted contracts to get far more direct contact with individuals on section 4 support and to get them involved in the NASS contracts. It is no longer simply the case that someone can be sent a letter in the hope that they will receive it so that they will know exactly what they need to do and in what circumstances. The whole contact management operation is getting far more sophisticated within NASS, but all those support mechanisms and contact processes relate to the departure and removal of people who have exhausted all their claims and no longer have a right or any legal locus to remain in this country. I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman—and do not make me regret it, please.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I fear that I cannot guarantee the Minister that. We all appreciate the concession that has been made, but the hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were asking what the justification was for the Government to rule out cash. The Minister said that it was not about a pull factor, but in his letter to The Guardian and The Times, he said:

"Support for failed asylum seekers is limited and temporary to ensure that it does not act as an incentive to remain."

If he is not saying that that is his view, why is he ruling out cash full stop?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman has half made me regret giving way, but his intervention gives me a chance to look at the letter again. The letter goes to exactly what I was saying. It is perfectly right and proper that there should be distinct support mechanisms for those applying for asylum in the normal fashion and for those who have exhausted every element of the processes, legal and otherwise, and have absolutely no legitimate right to be in this country. They will not be people who fear torture following removal, otherwise they would not have section 4 support. The regime can and should be—taking into account the points that I made about its temporary nature to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—distinct from the process that everyone else is going through in the normal fashion.

That goes to the heart of the criticism and dispute about everybody being on vouchers in the first place. That was seen as penalising people who were applying for asylum in the normal way, because of the ineffectiveness and impracticalities of vouchers. We accept that point and I do not demur one ounce or jot from the reason that my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary suggested for moving away from vouchers in the first place. However, it is not enough to pick up one little bit of an overall package for those on section 4 support. That is the point. There is an overall package—it is not just the vouchers. That package is temporary and it is about a prelude to a removal. With the extensions to the support mechanisms, for the critical reasons that hon. Members have suggested, it is right and proper to expand that provision to support in kind in goods and services. That gives us a broader sweep in relation to the gaps where a full support package of full board and accommodation cannot be provided. In that context, we will be in a far happier position in relation to the support mechanisms put in place under section 4 if we accept the Lords amendment. I offer that to the House and commend it.

For the reasons that I have suggested, we will resist amendment (a), which extends the support to cash, and we will certainly dismiss, or resist—I have dismissed it already—amendment (b) from the Conservatives about the report and so on. In substance, all those elements are being carried out in various ways by accepting the Lords amendment and by our regular reporting on the asylum statistics.

The matter is very sensitive. I concur with what people said about the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I was going to make a nice joke about Walthamstow market, but I will pass on that because we are too serious. I commend most of the other contributions, save that of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), who really should not have bothered, in what is a very serious debate. I commend the Lords amendment to the House and ask it to resist amendments (a) and (b).

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, but I have to say that I do not understand his reasoning. I will withdraw the amendment purely on the grounds that I do not believe that parliamentary arithmetic suggests that it will be carried. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.