UK Borders Bill
Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2007.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Before we begin properly, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during the Committee meetings.
Please will all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are switched off or switched to silent mode during the Committee meetings?
I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room.
Today is only the second occasion on which a Public Bill Committee will hear oral evidence on a Bill. So that everyone is clear about the procedures and what will happen this morning, I will briefly explain what is proposed.
As with a normal Committee, the Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions. Those two motions should be formalities. Assuming that the second of these motions has been agreed, the Committee will then move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the Room and the oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees the programme motion, the Committee will hear oral evidence this week before reverting to more the familiar proceedings of clause by clause scrutiny in subsequent sittings.
We come first to the programme motion, debate on which may continue for up to half an hour. I call the Minister.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 27th February) meet—
(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 27th February;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 1st March;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th March;
(d) at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th March;
(e) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 13th March;
(f) at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th March;
(g) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th March;
(h) at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 22nd March;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;
TABLE
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Before I put the question on that motion, I perhaps should have mentioned earlier that while we are in this Room and taking evidence, Members may remain seated. The microphones are set at a lower level, and if those speaking were to stand and sit throughout the proceedings, it would interfere with the broadcasting.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. The Programming Sub-Committee left one slot free for additional witnesses, and the Refugee Children’s Consortium has requested an opportunity to present evidence to the Committee. I should like to move an amendment to the programme motion to the effect that it be invited to submit oral evidence.
I beg to move a manuscript amendment:
“In the table, under the last entry for Thursday 1st March, leave out ‘Additional witnesses to be decided by the Committee’ and insert ‘Refugee Children’s Consortium’.”
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I echo the Minister’s welcome to you, Mr. Illsley, not just to the Chair of the Committee but to the journey of discovery that I suspect we are on, certainly until we get to grips with the welcome innovation of allowing Committees to question not just Ministers—which will no doubt be entertaining—but expert witnesses from outside. The Minister has set out what he intends to happen with the Bill. It is already clear from the submissions to the Committee by those who are going to give oral evidence, and by many others, that our serious reservations about parts of the Bill are shared by experts in the field. There are clearly deep reservations about this across the spectrum, so the sessions will be useful in that we will be able to hear about them in detail from a large number of witnesses. The amendment is also down in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. We support the idea of hearing witnesses from the Refugee Children’s Consortium as at this stage of the Bill.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I associate myself with the remark that it is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr. Illsley, and I speak in support of the amendment to the programme motion.
This is not as much of an innovation for me as it appears to be for other members of the Committee, because I served on the Committee considering the Bill that became the Immigration Act 1999. Under the old rules of the House we had the then fairly unusual procedure of evidence-taking sessions beforehand. The present Leader of the House, then the Home Secretary, gave evidence to that Committee. I well remember his saying that he regarded the Bill as the final word. I think that he said that sorting out the immigration system was the greatest challenge then facing him as Home Secretary and that he hoped that the Bill would be the final word.
What appeared to be important then was that different groups should have the opportunity to give evidence, that the Committee should conduct itself at such a pace that it could digest that evidence; and that Ministers should have the opportunity to reflect on what the witnesses had said. My one slight criticism is that we heard some good evidence on that Committee, but unfortunately not all of it—very little of it, in fact—was reflected in changes in the Bill, because the Government became very resistant to changing any dot or comma of it. I hope that this Committee will proceed in such a way and with such timing that the Government can actually think about the evidence that it hears and then make the changes to the Bill that I apprehend may be necessary to make it a better Bill.
Iain Wright (Labour, Hartlepool)
I share the view that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley—in fact, you seem to chair every Bill Committee on which I serve. I do not know which of us has drawn the short straw.
I should like to speak against the amendment. I know that we—the Committee and the House—are finding our feet, but the Refugee Children’s Consortium provided written evidence for hon. Members, in UKB 05, which I found very useful. However, I wonder what precedents we are setting, having oral and written evidence. I would like the broadest possible range of evidence available, from a whole host of sources, but I wonder whether we are taking up the Committee’s time when we could be using other avenues to explore and tease out particular aspects of the Bill. As I said, I found the written submission of the Refugee Children’s Consortium extremely useful and informative, but I would feel happier—the Committee might feel happier—if we had another source in that oral evidence slot.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
I too welcome the general consensus on getting as wide a range of views and opinions about the Bill as possible. I support my colleague’s amendment. Hearing from the Refugee Children’s Consortium is important, but, given what other hon. Members said earlier, I am sure that they would welcome other organisations as well. We do not seem to have any submissions from Migration Watch, which would obviously take a very different view. Given that all sides of the political spectrum here welcome the idea of diverse opinions coming in, may I suggest that Migration Watch could provide an additional set of witnesses.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
The reason Migration Watch is not scheduled to give evidence is because of unavailability.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Thank you.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
On a point of order and to help my hon. Friend, the Committee has the power to move for another evidence session. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish to bear that in mind as we make progress. People who might not be available this week might well be available in future weeks.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Has the debate concluded?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Not necessarily.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I welcome you to the Chair of these proceedings, Mr. Illsley. I am minded to contribute to try to clarify what has just happened. The Committee has voted against having oral evidence from the Refugee Children’s Consortium, although the programme motion allows time not only for the Refugee Children’s Consortium, but for other witnesses, should the hon. Member for Hartlepool have desired to put forward alternative witnesses.
We have struck out the opportunity for the Refugee Children’s Consortium to give oral evidence to the Committee for no apparent reason other than to leave early. Under the programme motion as it is now, we will finish at 3.30 pm on Thursday 1 March, with an hour and a half of available, scheduled Committee time and no witnesses, despite the Committee having put them forward. I am surprised at the decision of Government Members to strike out the opportunity for the Refugee Children’s Consortium to give evidence; it has been told that it cannot give evidence without any alternative having been put forward by members of the Committee, which is deeply regrettable.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I echo and amplify my hon. Friend’s words. We have all welcomed the new procedure, which enables a Committee to take evidence from experts to improve the scrutiny of the Bill, yet the Government’s first act, in one of the first Bills to use that procedure, is to reduce the opportunity of the Committee to take evidence. As a window to the Government’s real attitude to scrutiny, that cannot be improved; their first act is to reduce the possibility of independent evidence and improved scrutiny of Bills. That sets an appalling precedent. Presumably, having tested out such an approach, the Government will have the power in all future Bills to strike down individual witnesses whom they might find inconvenient. The words of the Minister, of the Leader of the House and of other Ministers, who have welcomed this innovation to improve the scrutiny of Bills, have been shown to be hollow. The Minister and his team have let down Parliament this morning.
David Wright (Labour, Telford)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many Bills were considered using this mechanism between 1979 and 1997?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the beginning of the sitting.
David Wright (Labour, Telford)
I certainly was.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I welcomed the innovation and congratulated the Government on producing it. I object, as anyone who cares about parliamentary scrutiny should, to the Government’s first act of the Committee, which reduces the ability to scrutinise the Bill. If he cared about that when he came to scrutinise legislation in Committee, he too would want to fill the time that we have for available witnesses with contributions from experts. It is regrettable that the Government should foist such censorship on people who have great expertise in the field.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I should like to express mild surprise at the pose that Opposition Members are striking. I thought that in previous discussions, we agreed a principle that it was important for Back Benchers to have selectability to table amendments, which may or may not entail calling witnesses. There are a large number of witnesses who could throw further light on our deliberations, not only Migration Watch, whose members are unfortunately out of the country, but organisations such as the CBI, which has a perspective to add, and the east London community organisations that represent migrants’ rights. There is a wide range of others as well.
I would like to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. It is important that the Committee has the opportunity to digest the evidence presented to it, as it goes along, and the flexibility and recourse to table amendments to summon additional witnesses. I think that that principle is extremely important and, subject to your guidance, Mr. Illsley, one that is already in place.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. I hope that he will be equally kind on my second proposition, which was that Ministers should consider evidence given and make changes to the legislation. I shall be holding a marker down for that and looking forward to seeing the changes as they come along.
On the point about reflection, I say this to the Minister: I am the first to admit that I do not have the greatest powers of reflection in the world, but I wonder whether it will take me so long to reflect on the matters before us that I will need an extra hour and a half on Thursday 1 March. After that, I shall have time to think about matters and table amendments. I think that I am right in saying that we will now finish at half-past 3 on 1 March. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what the magic is in 3.30 pm?
The House sits until 6 o’clock on Thursdays these days, I think, when we are here. We will not need that extra hour and a half, or two and a half hours, of additional thinking time then because we will have so much time for that afterwards. Why can we not use that valuable time to take further evidence? What is the magic in 3.30 pm? We have adopted this evidence-taking procedure, so our constituents will ask why we are not prepared to work a little harder and have an extra hour and a half of evidence taking. We might hear some vital evidence that will make a difference. I do not see the magic in 3.30 pm. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to finish at that time and why we cannot have an extra hour and a half?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Will you guide me? Is it still within the power of Committee members to table amendments seeking to call additional witnesses?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Yes. It is within the power of the Committee, up until 3.30 pm on Thursday 1 March, to make an amendment to bring in another witness for that particular sitting. All the Committee has done this morning is to reject an amendment scheduling a witness for that particular sitting. It is for the Committee to make amendments as it sees fit in regard to that sitting. My understanding is that the Committee can decide or deliberate on motions to bring in extra witnesses at any time during deliberation of the Bill.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I am disappointed by the attitude of Government Members. Four sittings have been allocated for witnesses. My understanding from the meeting on the programme motion was that there would be an opportunity today for Members to suggest additional witnesses, if we are to have one on that Thursday afternoon. We at least need to find out if they are available and make that decision today. I admit that Members can move additional meetings during the Committee stage but presumably, given that there are no more special sessions programmed, that will be at the expense of debating time.
We have an opportunity this afternoon to propose witnesses, so if the Government are not prepared to accept that witness, which I regret, I shall propose a second witness. I think that it is important that we make full use of the time available for witnesses. If we are not going to do that, we are showing that this process is nothing more than window dressing. I would like to move that Manchester Airport Security be invited on Thursday afternoon at 3.30.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I am unable to select that amendment. It would have had to have been presented to the Committee as a manuscript amendment. It is open to the Committee to amend its Order at any time—this afternoon, for example.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I understood from our discussions last night that you would permit Members to bring forward suggestions this morning, Mr. Illsley. Otherwise, we are just throwing away a session in which we could have heard from witnesses.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
The amendment that we debated last night, and which was suggested by the Programming Sub-Committee, has been put and lost. The only reason that I cannot select the hon. Gentleman’s further amendment is that it needs to be in manuscript form.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. As you have just made clear, given that it is possible to table manuscript amendments for new witnesses to be added, either on Thursday or in other sittings, can you give guidance as to whether it is possible to ask the Committee to consider the Refugee Children’s Consortium again, or is it now ruled out of court? I would like to know whether the Government have a particular prejudice against this group of children’s charities, or they are just trying to get away early.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
It is a general rule of the House that, once an amendment has been defeated, it is not brought back. So, I could not accept the same amendment again.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
On a point of order, is it possible to propose a manuscript amendment now for Thursday 1 March? At the moment, we have an artificial break at 3.30 pm, when the House will be sitting until 6.30 pm. We can still have additional witnesses, to be decided by the Committee, but it seems sensible not to have Professor Ross Anderson and Liberty artificially constrained. I wish to propose an amendment, on Thursday 1 March, under the witness listing for Professor Ross Anderson and Phil Booth, to delete “2.30 pm” and insert “3 pm”, and under Liberty, to delete “3.30 pm” and insert “5 pm”. At least then, Mr. Illsley, we will have the opportunity to establish whether the Government are simply taking the opportunity to leave early, or whether they are actually interested in scrutiny.
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
Further to that point of order, is it your recollection, Mr. Illsley, as it is mine, that when we discussed the last sitting in the programming sub-committee, its purpose was to ensure that the usual channels did not produce a prescriptive list of witnesses, and that an opportunity should be given to Back-Bench Members to come up with people that they would like to see? Furthermore, part of the reason for leaving that sitting at the end of Thursday was that issues may arise during the Committee’s deliberations today. We have not yet started that deliberation, and yet we are seeking to fill that time.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
We are not necessarily filling the time. The purpose of the amendment is merely to remove the buffer at 3.30 pm. It is entirely in the gift of the Committee to finish earlier. Indeed, if the evidence from Professor Anderson and Mr Booth comes to a natural conclusion before 3 pm, and that of Liberty before 5 pm, that is the position.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Given the length of time available now to debate the programme motion, I will not select the amendment that the hon. Member for Reigate has just proposed. It is open to him at a later stage to suggest an amendment.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I can do that at 11 o’clock.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
The hon. Gentleman can suggest it for the start of the next sitting, which is this afternoon.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
Why not at 11 o’clock?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
We have only two minutes left to debate it, so basically we are running out of time.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I understand why I cannot do it at 10.58 am.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
The procedure would be for the hon. Gentleman to suggest an amendment; it is then up to the Chairman whether to select it. My ruling is that I am not prepared to select this amendment now, but it is open to the Committee to make an amendment at the beginning of the next sitting, or in any other sitting.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I now call the Minister to move the motion to report written evidence. This is a formality whereby any written evidence that the Committee accepts enjoys the benefit of parliamentary privilege.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. I now call the Minister to move the motion to permit the Committee to sit in private.
Written evidence to be reported to the House
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Could I now ask that the Room be cleared of members of the public please, in order that the Committee can deliberate in private?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
We will now hear oral evidence from the representatives of the Home Office. I welcome the witnesses. Would the Minister, Liam Byrne, like to introduce the team himself or ask them to introduce themselves?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind the Committee that questions must be limited to the provisions of the Bill. I understand that Mr. Byrne would like to make a very short introductory statement, but once again, I caution that it must relate to the contents of the Bill.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I want to start with the first section of the Bill, “Detention at ports”, and the extra powers that the Minister regards as necessary for immigration officers. Even before we start the scrutiny of this Bill, the Scottish Executive have rejected this section of it and said they will not enforce it in Scotland. Apart from being a personal humiliation for the Minister, does this not mean that if these powers are necessary to protect our borders, our borders are not protected if the Scottish ports and airports do not have the same system as English and Welsh ones.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I am sure that people in Scotland and in the rest of Britain will find that answer amazingly complacent. If these powers are necessary to protect ports in England and Wales, they are necessary to protect them in Scotland. Unless the Minister is proposing to rebuild Hadrian’s wall, if the Scottish ports and airports are unsafe—as presumably he must regard them as being, if his legislation is not being passed in Scotland—the whole country is unsafe. I remind him that his party is the leading party in the Scottish Executive. What have they told him as to why it is unnecessary there? If, as I understand from newspaper reports, they are saying that there are more police at Scottish ports than at English ports and airports, what is he doing to remedy the situation in England and Wales?
Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)
My constituents are less bothered about what happens in Scotland than what happens in the ports of Ipswich and Felixstowe. Those who work there are regularly frustrated to see people legging it off the back of a ship and making their way out of the port or, even worse, being directed by staff to head to Croydon, where the immigration and nationality directorate head office is. What will the Bill do to change that perception of insecurity on our borders?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
What discussions has the Minister had with airport and ports authorities about how the Bill will operate Bill?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I was interested in what the Minister said about the fact that a range of officers operating at ports already have authority to co-operate and interchange. Has consideration been given to widening that and making best use of available resources? I visited Manchester airport last week and it would be very supportive of the idea. It has problems at certain peak times because the officers are not inter-operational. It would see that as a positive benefit and a first step towards a unified border force.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Given what the Minister has briefly said there, why has he not taken the opportunity to regularise some of those things in the Bill, and to move them forward?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I remind Members and witnesses to keep questions and answers succinct and to the point.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
We are talking about giving immigration officers significant extra powers. That is not necessarily a bad thing. However, there are implications, one of which is that there will be a rise in compensation claims against the IND. Can you give us a rough ballpark figure as to how much the IND paid out in compensation claims, in and out of court, in the last year for which you have figures, plus a estimate of what you expect the increase to be as a result of the increased powers of immigration officers?
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Briefly, Minister, thank you so much for your offer. I have been trying to get that information for the past year, and you say that you can write to the Committee, presumably in the next two weeks, with the figures for the amount of compensation paid out by the IND in the last year for which you have figures.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
I am grateful. Just one final, separate, point. Do you agree that immigration officers who could be dealing with potentially difficult clients should have the ability to use pepper spray and some sort of baton like that used by the police, and to undergo training for that?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
We have spent about 35 minutes on this one section; if there is time towards the end of the sitting, we may return to it. Let us move on to clauses 5 to 15 on biometric registration.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
Rather than attempt to discuss the principle, which we have done on many occasions and will no doubt do again, I want to take an individual point from the evidence that has been submitted by Daon, which is a company that provides biometric systems for the American and Australian Governments. Its people are presumably enthusiasts, as the Minister is for this. Their evidence is fascinating. They say that
“biometrics are not fool proof. Two biometrics from the same person may fail to match (a ‘false negative’). Conversely, two biometrics from different individuals may appear to match (a ‘false positive’). When dealing with large enrolled populations and high volumes of transactions, these error rates become a critical operational consideration.”
When the people who produce the biometric kit say that if it is used in the way that the Minister intends to use it, large numbers of errors will result, does he not worry? Has he made any estimate of what sort of percentage of errors there will be?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Before the next question, may I ask Members and witnesses to come back within the scope of the Bill?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I want to pick up something that Mr. Hall said. He said that you have made estimates of the likely false matches. It would obviously be extremely helpful if those estimates could be made available to the Committee.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I want to ask about biometric identity documents for children and the issue of unstable biometrics. Why does clause 6(3) require children to have biometric ID?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Would the Minister make available the Department’s estimates of the unreliability of these data for children? That is the crux of the issue.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Secondly, given that you will require people abroad to get biometric data when they apply to come into this country, what estimate have you made of the effects on foreign posts and whether the officers will be able to process this information? At a busy post like Islamabad, people wait four or five months to get a visa issued once it has been granted. What additional resources will you make available and what is the estimate of the additional cost to operate that at busy posts?
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
I shall ask more general questions, then a specific one. First, a general question to the Minister. Why is so much of the detail about biometric registration left to secondary legislation, when will the regulations be published and what level of consultation does he envisage occurring?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
That is an extremely fair question. There are a couple of reasons why there will need to be regulations, which will be reasonably detailed. Let me try to sketch out a couple of reasons. First, there are something like 3.4 million foreign nationals already in Britain. As we change the systems that we operate over the next few years, we will be asking everybody seeking to come to this country from a visa country or to work, study or stay for longer than six months to go through the process of applying for a biometric visa. So they will have a biometric identity before they come anywhere near our islands. However, that leaves the question of how we roll out biometric identity documents for the estimated 3.4 million foreign nationals who are already here.
Those foreign nationals will fall into a number of different categories. There are those who are working in particular high-risk sectors, and others whom we just happen to see during the course of our ordinary business each year. A good example of those would be students who are already here and who are seeking to extend their leave. Another example would be those foreign nationals who have old passports and who want to transfer conditions to a new document. There are potentially 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 people who IND would see in Britain during the course of a normal business year. What we have to construct is the right roll-out plan for biometric immigration documents. We are starting with none of those 3.4 million people with biometric immigration documents; we want to get to a situation where they all have them.
The question for us is: what path do we take to 100 per cent.? My argument is that the path that we should be seeking to take should be guided by two principles: efficiency and risk. First, that means that we should be seeking to introduce biometric immigration documents to those people whom we happen to see in any given year. Secondly, there are particular parts of the economy that are especially vulnerable to illegal working, and I have provided to the House in a number of parliamentary answers a breakdown of where those sectors are, and of where we end up detaining more people and what sectors they work in.
There are particular sectors where we should be seeking to introduce biometric immigration documents first. However, I do not think that we should impose that solution on industry or business by diktat. We are going to have to work closely with good employers in the private sector, who want to drive out illegal immigration, in order to get that roll-out plan right. That plan is the subject of some detail, so I think that it would be inappropriate to specify that on the face of the Bill.
There is a minor technical question, which is that it is important to ensure that the specification of the technology that we use is common across the EU. The EU is obviously bringing in a directive for biometric residence permits in the not too distant future, and it is important that we take account of the specifications that that entails. That is another area where there are elements of detail that mean that it would be inappropriate to put specifications on the face of the Bill but there is quite a lot of detail still to set out.
It is important that we ensure a good deal of parliamentary scrutiny of such regulations. That is why any regulations proposed under the powers that we are seeking under the Bill will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. I cannot be too specific on the question of the timetable, but my commitment is that we will start to roll out biometric immigration documents for foreign nationals in 2008, which means that we need the regulations in place, debated, scrutinised and made ready in good time for us to set up the systems that will allow us to roll them out in the first place.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
You have omitted the issue of consultation.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I am happy to incorporate consultation, because it is essential if we are to get the sectors right. As I said, we cannot impose biometric immigration documents on sectors of the economy without collaboration. When we talk to organisations such as National Car Parks, from which I am glad to see that we will be taking evidence over the weeks to come, we see that a huge number of excellent employers have high standards of risk management and believe, rightly, that there is damage to be done to corporate reputations if people are caught employing illegal immigrants. I want to move quite quickly to a situation where we name and shame employers who employ people illegally, and as we increase the risk to businesses of employing people illegally we will see far greater co-operation, and a much greater appetite for that co-operation, in making it more transparent and easier to establish that someone is who they say they are and whether they have the right to work. The consultation has to be part of getting the roll-out strategy right. I hope that that is clearer.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Thank you. I shall try to be brief with my second question. Your colleague, the Under-Secretary, told my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), recently that the number of passports lost by the relevant Department had gone from 691 to more than 1,000 in respect of secure delivery in just two years. It is estimated that some 1,000 will be lost this year. The nub of the issue is about the security of biometric data. How secure do you think they will be? Who will have access to them? How will the data be collected in the first place?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Now we move on to the next section of the Bill, “Treatment of claimants”, clauses 16 to 19. I again ask for brief responses from the witnesses.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
My questions have been covered. I appreciate that the Minister is going to write to me. In fairness, he said that he was going to write to me in September, but I have not received the letter yet.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
That is fine. Does anyone wish to ask questions on clauses 16 to 19?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
May I ask the Minister what has prompted the Government to bring forward the proposals? How will the proposals operate in practice? How many people does he envisage being subject to them? What arrangements will be put in place for those people who have the reporting restriction added to their conditions?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
On that last point, the Minister did not answer the question about the numbers. I should be interested if some estimate could be given to us, as to how many are expected and what categories will be applied. On the subject of children, does she not accept that there are other, more appropriate agencies, which perhaps have better skills for dealing with children and already have contact with unaccompanied children, than immigration officers? If immigration officers are going to be used, what additional training will they be given and will they be compliant with child protection legislation and, for example, the police check?
Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)
May I ask the Minister, or perhaps the Under-Secretary, about what processes exist to determine whether an applicant is a minor? There are documented examples of youthful claimants who purport to be minors, but later turn out not to have been. That has created problems of minors with whom they come into contact being put at risk.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I am puzzled that the context of this discussion is unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The regulatory impact assessment says that clause 16 is about those who have committed serious crimes, and the Bill involves tough, punitive measures imposing conditions on people. Will the Minister clear that up? Are those measures meant to improve our control over serious criminals or are they meant to increase the protection of unaccompanied children? It seems slightly strange to try to do both with the same set of measures.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I shall move on now to other enforcement issues in clauses 20 to 27.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Why were not some of these provisions introduced in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
It is difficult for me to speak for my predecessors. All I can say is that when the gaps were drawn to my attention, I thought that it was impossible to fill them.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Will you tell us how the measures will operate in relation to trafficking?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I shall ask Joan Ryan to say a little bit about trafficking and I shall ask Tony and Bob to add what I hope will be some useful scenarios.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
I am sorry, do you want me to talk about clauses 25 to 27?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Yes, on trafficking facilitation. Could you just sketch out the broad purpose? It is one of those areas in which scenarios are terrifically useful, both to understand the provisions of extra-territoriality and to clarify the law about when somebody is considered to be in Britain for the purposes of the offence.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Briefly, I shall try to provide some clarity. Clause 25 refers to facilitation. The issue is when one enters and arrives. We are seeking to extend the scope of evidence admissible in court to acts of facilitation that are committed when an asylum seeker has entered the country, that is to say stepped off an aeroplane, but before they have arrived, which means before they have crossed the border line and been given the right to entry by an immigration officer. There have been issues in the courts concerning evidence of an act committed in that gap between entry and arrival and whether it can be admissible in court. Clearly, we think that it should be. We have made changes in the past; we used “enter” but the court wanted “arrival”, so there is still that issue that we want to resolve, because we are having difficulty prosecuting people who commit acts of facilitation in that gap. I am sure that an example would illuminate that point.
Clause 26 is about facilitation and territoriality. We want to extend our ability to prosecute those who facilitate entry knowingly and for the gain of illegal asylum seekers. “For gain” is a crucial point, as is illegal entry. We want to extend our territoriality so that acts that are committed outside the UK come into the scope of our courts. We want to be able to cover not only perpetrators who are British nationals; non-British nationals are out of our scope at the moment and are having a significant impact on the UK in facilitating illegal entry.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Let me ask Bob to say a little bit from the Serious Organised Crime Agency perspective about some of the characters that we are dealing with. I shall then ask Tony to explain how some of the scenarios manifest themselves in the immigration service.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
So, this is a global business. It often manifests itself at the border in a manner that, today, makes it difficult for us to prosecute. Tony, I think that a couple of examples would illustrate this.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
I shall now move on to the deportation of foreign criminals.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
Minister, this is a difficult subject. Some judges still complain about what is happening with deportation. Clauses 28 to 35 deal with foreign criminals—people who are not British citizens—who have come to this country and abused their permission to be here by committing an offence, or offences, that are so serious that only a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate. Why are you restricting the provisions to sentences of more than 12 months?
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
May I interrupt you there? That is not relevant to my point. If they commit an offence resulting in a sentence of more than 12 months, they will be deported, whatever their family ties.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
The new power of automatic deportation has been added to the existing provisions that you have described, but it would not necessarily lead to automatic deportation for those who receive more than 12 months. I draw your attention to clause 34(1)(b), which I call the serial offenders concession. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but it seems to make it clear that somebody who receives a series of consecutive sentences, each of less than 12 months, but in total of more than 12 months—that is how courts are told to sentence separate offences—will not be subject to automatic deportation. That means that somebody who commits a series of serious offences and receives two or more individual sentences resulting in a total sentence of nine, 18, 27 or even 36 months, if they commit up to four offences, will not be subject to this provision. Why are you leaving them out?
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
Why not here? The matter is not dealt with here.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I think you will find that there are some very good amendments that answer the questions that you have just posed, and which would simply change the total sentence to 12 months. That gets round all the problems that you have described.
Is not a bigger problem in the approach that you describe—adding it on to the existing powers—the danger that the courts and others will treat it as a rule of thumb that if somebody is not subject to automatic deportation there will be a tendency for him not to be deported? It will be argued in court that he is not subject to automatic deportation so the court can exercise its discretion in his favour.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I think that we will be very interested in doing so.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
All the points that I was going to raise have been covered. However, can you clarify a few matters that are not dealt with here but are caught up in other parts of the legislation? Am I right in saying that if somebody who has acquired British citizenship becomes involved in serious criminal offences there are mechanisms to strip him of that citizenship?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
So those measures still apply.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
The deportation provisions and the automatic presumption apply to people who are not British citizens. Is it correct that you would not be able to enact those retrospectively?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I believe that we can, but I shall get clarification on that point for the stand part debate.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Recently, there has been press coverage about the exemptions that would apply to Irish nationals. Can you explain what they are?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Do you not think, Minister, that this is merely a case of introducing legislation to deal with an administrative failure by your Department and that there is already sufficient legislation to deport prisoners if that is what the courts and Home Secretary wish to do?
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
It might be helpful if I add that there has been a very significant development with regard to the European Union. The Minister referred to the fact that the situation is different with the European Union as opposed to third countries and we are on the verge of a framework decision on prisoner transfer. That will not be retrospective and it is subject at the moment to our parliamentary scrutiny. Mr. Clappison knows about this as we discussed it at some length last week in the Home Affairs Committee. It will mean that European Union offenders from other European Union countries will serve their sentence in their own country and we will no longer have to have their consent for that to be the case. Equally, British prisoners in other European Union countries will serve their sentence here. I think this is very important. First of all, numbers-wise it is hugely to the benefit of the United Kingdom. There are about three times more other European Union prisoners in our prisons than there are British citizens in other European Union prisons. Also it will assist in rehabilitation and the reduction of recidivism in terms of working with British prisoners in prisons here as opposed to having no contact with them while they are abroad. I think that that is a significant move; it is outside the scope of the Bill, but it adds to the picture.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I understand that, but there are two elements to what the Bill does: first, it removes the Secretary of State’s discretion; secondly, it removes the ability to appeal, except on human rights or refugee grounds. Let us go back to the practical case of Sakchai Makao from the Shetland islands. The appeal judges considered his offence, as well as compassionate grounds and the support that he had in the community. If the Bill goes through, he would have no chance of remaining in this country, despite the fact that the majority of Shetlanders support him and there are compassionate grounds for him to remain in the country. Is this not an unnecessary piece of legislation? It would mean the automatic deportation of that young man, even though the court ruled, in the end, that he has reasonable grounds to remain in this country.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I generally have a policy of not discussing individual cases in the House, but the hon. Gentleman will have to remind me of the sentence that was handed down—I think that it was nine months in this case.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
In the circumstances, this is not the forum for pursuing individual cases. Although I allowed the hon. Gentleman a little leeway to use that case as an example, I do not think that we should discuss it further.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
But the Minister quotes the opposite, and when he presents us with a fait accompli, he must look at the other side of the coin, because there are clear cases in which the Secretary of State’s discretion could at least be exercised.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
And that is why, in response to Mr. Clappison’s question during my introductory remarks to the questions on this part of the Bill, I said that a balance has to be struck here. It is quite possible that we have individuals who have lived in this country for decades, who have families and who are well integrated into the community, but who have committed an offence, which has resulted in a sentence. We all read The Daily Telegraph and know of cases of individuals who have been—[ Interruption. ] I am sorry; I am casting aspersions on my hon. Friends. However, there are cases in which people have gone to jail for not paying their council tax, and I would argue that that does not necessarily involve a sentence that should require automatic deportation. That is why it is important that the Committee has a debate about whether the 12-month threshold is the right one, and some Committee members may think that a different threshold should be set. However, we should be clear that those who have committed a serious breach of our hospitality should face the prospect of automatic deportation. That is why we have tried to put in place a systematic approach to pick these issues up.
I encourage the Committee to focus not only on the 12-month threshold, but on section 72 of the 2002 Act. When I looked at the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails who might be affected by these provisions, it was clear that, at a very rough estimate—I put it no more strongly than that—about 4,300 would be. Now, 2,200 of them—ballpark—will be affected by the 12-month threshold provisions and about 2,100 will be affected by the section 72 provisions, so it is important that the Committee looks at both. However, the basic answer to your question is that there needs to be a stronger link between criminality and deportation than there is today. There will no doubt be individual cases that are difficult.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Damian Green, you have a question on information sharing?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
It is a general question, because I am aware that we want to go back to one or two previous issues. The overall problem, as the Minister will be well aware, relates to the information version of mission creep: information is collected for one purpose and can then be spread through the Government machine in ways that people find unacceptable—even those who think it acceptable to carry out the collection of biometric information for a specific purpose when the user accepts it voluntarily. I am slightly nervous that there do not seem to be many safeguards against such indiscriminate sharing of information once it is collected.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Before I ask my colleague, Joan Ryan, to talk about the protections that are in place, particularly the criminal sanctions that have been introduced, perhaps I could ask Bob to say a little about why information sharing is so important in helping immigration and customs, police and SOCA to build up an integrated, systematic picture of the issues that we are trying to tackle.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Clause 37, for instance, includes a statutory duty of confidentiality, in the main in relation to information sharing with Revenue and Customs. Sharing information with Revenue and Customs is absolutely crucial to many of IND’s main functions. Front-line staff, in particular, have identified that information held by Revenue and Customs as information that will make a significant difference to them. We already have some information sharing, but we want a single information-sharing power. The seriousness with which we view wrongful disclosure and the confidentiality issues is demonstrated in the take-across, which has been discussed at some length between Ministers and the Paymaster General. The maximum penalty for wrongful disclosure is some two years in prison or an unlimited fine. Those are pretty serious sanctions, which we will enforce and which give a strong message. For private individuals, the Data Protection Act will also apply to personal information. In terms of information sharing with SOCA, it is subject to the PACE codes of practice and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. There are strong measures in place and I hope that will be reassuring.
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
May I stop you there, Minister. I think this will have to be the final question, Mr. Jackson.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Are we permitted to go back?
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Yes.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Okay. We have only a minute left—
Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)
Very briefly.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Mr. Byrne, you wrote to your colleague the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 8 February to say that the decisions in respect of reserved and devolved powers were an appropriate remedy for Scotland and an operational solution. Yet, this morning—perhaps I am confused—you seemed to be saying that the situation will “resolve itself”, and you prayed in aid the manifestos of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Are you happy with the situation as it is, or do you wish it to be changed from May 2007? Can you clarify that quickly?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
As my fellow Chairman said, the Committee may amend the programme order at any stage in its proceedings. The way to do that is first through a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, leading to the adoption of an amendment in the main Committee, or secondly by means of an amendment moved by the Minister, providing that no member of the Committee objects. I understand that the Minister will move one or more amendments to the Committee’s order of this morning. They will not be debateable and they will fall if a single member of the Committee objects.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We now come to the first evidence session this afternoon. Will Mr. Thomas and Mr. Symonds kindly join us? Gentlemen, without any opening statements, will you kindly introduce yourselves to the Committee?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Order. I wonder whether the technical person could do something about the microphones. Certainly I had some difficulty in hearing, and I believe that other Committee members did too. Please continue to answer, Mr. Thomas, but the Committee would appreciate it if the person responsible for technical matters could do something about the microphones.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Could you tell us what concerns your association might have about the granting of these new powers to immigration officers?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
This morning the Minister and one of his officials said that there was already a degree of interoperability between the various people who work in the ports. Can you tell us about that, from your own and your members’ experience, and whether there have been any particular issues or problems, bearing in mind your answer to the previous question?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
No. Let us say customs officers are taking on the role of an immigration officer, a police officer and so on.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
I am quite concerned by what you have just said. Although all offences are serious, there is a lot of public concern and in this place about the really serious offenders, the people traffickers who make big money, work an organised network and are into all sorts of crime. You have just told us that your experience is that the police are being distracted from dealing with such people. How strong is your evidence for saying that?
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
So team work is not working as well as one would ideally hope for.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Does your anecdotal experience point to the need to strengthen the resources we are investing in the immigration service alongside the provisions in the Bill?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We now move to the next part of the Bill—detention at ports.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I am struck that in your evidence you talk about training, guidance and so on. Do you think that the immigration officers at ports should not be given the extra powers? Is it as stark as that?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
Do you think that, as of now, the immigration officers who would be designated under the terms of this measure do not have the proper training? Is that what you are saying?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
To go on from that, you make a point in your written evidence about children. I would like you to expand on that. What are the particular problems relating to children which, in your argument, would be made worse by these extra powers?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
In terms of what you have just said, what are the implications for the immigration service if it is actually going to detain children at ports? What do you think needs to be added to this Bill that is not in it now?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
The Bill talks about designated immigration officers. In your experience, is it possible to designate certain officers at a busy port that will deal with young people and therefore ensure that they get the training?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
May I infer from your evidence that it is your view that these powers should be rolled out only in line with the provision of specialist training, and that as a general principle, you would support efforts to ensure much stronger, clearer, sharper oversight of the immigration and nationality directorate and the immigration services’ operations?
Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)
Do the witnesses have a view as to whether anything needs to be done to increase the certainty that an applicant presenting themselves as a minor is indeed a minor?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We now move on to biometric registration.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
I have a couple of questions, starting with a general question. Do you take issue with the principle of biometric identity documents, or with some of the practical details? Also, if you do oppose such documents, would you agree with NO2ID, which basically suggests that people coming to these shores will be unnecessarily criminalised by them, or do you perhaps see them as racially divisive, which is the argument that Liberty uses? What is your view, generally?
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Mr. Thomas?
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Clause 8(2) states:
“The regulations may include provision permitting the use of information for specified purposes which do not relate to immigration.”
The emphasis is on the last five words.
What is your view on that? What do you think that the Government have in mind? We are talking about documents not relating to immigration.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Would you also agree that clause 5(2)(k) is in a similar vein? It will
“permit the Secretary of State on issuing a biometric immigration document to require the surrender of other documents.”
Would you say that that is in a similar category to clause 8(2)?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Do either of you in your work come across cases when foreign nationals have real trouble proving their identity—for example, when they are trying to access public services in the course of their employment? Do you think that the use of biometric registration would help them to get around that problem? If you do not think that biometric ID cards are the answer, what do you suggest would help to solve their problems?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
That is the problem that people already have with the documentation: they have to prove their leave to remain at the moment.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
It would not be an additional problem.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I am struck by the second of the three real problems. Given your points about the vagueness and all-encompassing nature of many of the powers taken, you imply that there is a danger of breaching various international conventions to which we have signed up, such as the 1950 convention and the refugee convention. Will you expand on that?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
Would it make it less likely to be challenged under article 8 if there were specific restrictions on the classes of people to whom the Bill could apply and/or reasons for which they could be applied?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Does the European convention on human rights provide a measure of protection for the exercise of powers within the Bill? Would those protections then fall away if Britain were to withdraw from the ECHR?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Notwithstanding what you said earlier, what document do you think it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to hold—or to hold on to, as it says in the Bill—for future use?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
We would be dealing with an immigrant—possibly an illegal immigrant—or an asylum seeker. From your experience of working with them—
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
The court already has the power to withhold a passport.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Presumably, if the power that this Bill gives immigration officers to search for nationality documents is exercised, then the likelihood of that happening will be reduced.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I am trying to tease out what, in your view, is reasonable documentation for immigration officers to hold. They have the power; it is stated here in clause 40. In your view, is specifying the documentation here all that is needed?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Will it say that there is a suspicion of money laundering or trafficking? Presumably it would have to go further.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We now turn to the treatment of claimants. I think that Mr. Green has the first question.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
I do have one on clause 16, but it is on that issue. In your written statement you have understood clause 16, as I had done, to be essentially toughening powers against serious criminals. That is because we have read the regulatory impact assessment and that is what it mentions. This morning, the Ministers told us that we should look at it in the context of protecting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I was genuinely puzzled at that difference of interpretation. Can you give me your interpretation?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
That is a very interesting point. To move to the other side of it, the criminal side, the serious criminals, you seem to imply that actually this could be almost anyone. For people who come under the highly skilled migrant programme, the people who come under the points-based system, this is an all-encompassing set of powers. Is that what you—
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
How many people are we talking about roughly?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
Thank you.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
On clause 17, support for failed asylum seekers, are you happy that those particular clauses close any loophole?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Thank you. That is all.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We now turn to other enforcement issues and I think Mr. Damian Green has the first question.
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
This is an area where new powers are being extended to immigration officers so we can take the question and answer about training and guidance and codes of conduct as read. I assume that is what you would say. Do you think there are specific points to make in relation to these specific powers to seize cash and so on?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
If you are making the point that there will be lots of people who are on relatively low wages who will have what little they have confiscated, is it your experience that the people most responsible for that illegal working are the employees or the employers?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
That is very interesting. I am sorry to be anecdotal about a constituency case, but one of the longest lasting overstayers and illegal workers who ever presented himself at a constituency advice bureau had genuinely convinced himself that he was legal because he had spent five years working as a cook for a local NHS trust and so thought that the Government somehow must know that he was here and would have approved it.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
I want to be clear about what you are saying. Some of your comments are a little confusing. You use the term “perfectly legal jobs”. Clearly they are not perfectly legal.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
They are not legally employed.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Let us not get into a dispute over the words.
Are you saying that in your opinion, as a matter of principle, the targeting of illegal activity in respect of employment should be solely aimed at people who “exploited”—in other words, employers? Or are you saying that there should be a balance? You seem to be implying that there is no causal link: employers are employing people and it is illegaland there is no responsibility on the part of the employees. Could you clarify that?
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Far be it from me to support the Government, but the Whip is not here. What other sanction can the Government use in respect of being focused solely on employees if they cannot use the sanction contained in the clause?
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
Thank you. That is very clear.
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
May I infer from your remarks that you would support measures to shut down access to things like national insurance numbers or, indeed, other public services or jobs in the public sector for those who are here illegally?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
But you would support their removal?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Measures to make it harder for someone to obtain something such as a national insurance number illegally would be welcome?
Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Thank you, that is very clear.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
Currently, asylum seekers are not allowed to work, even while their appeals are going through. Would you support moves for them to be able to work and be less of a burden on the state?
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
I shall now turn to clause 22, particularly subsections (2) and (5). The provision relates to the disposal of property whose ownership is uncertain. Where the courts decline to make an order, the Secretary of State can decide on a whim to dispose of the property. Do you think that that is a reasonable power for the Secretary of State to have?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
I want pick up on a couple of points that have arisen. I should like to consider sanctions on employers of people that are here illegally. You are the lawyer; am I right in thinking that clause 23 puts sanctions on employers?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
The explanatory notes say:
“Clauses 23 and 24 cover the arrest of individuals who knowingly employ an illegal worker”
and so on.
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
Do you think that there should be greater powers of enforcement over employers?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
I am saying that there are new, additional powers in the Bill to target employers. Do you agree?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
Do you think that they are adequate?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
You rightly raised the interesting question of national insurance numbers. A few minutes ago, you mentioned that it was possible to obtain national insurance numbers using forged documentation, which you obviously would not support. Do you think that if people had compulsory identity cards, whether biometric or otherwise, that would prevent them from getting national insurance numbers fraudulently?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
I am asking you for a yes or no, really.
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
But you think that it would help in preventing illegal national insurance fraud. Yes or no?
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
Perhaps we will come back to that. I note your reluctance to give a yes/no answer.
Finally, you have said that you have general concerns about the vagueness of some of the provisions in the legislation. But I have noticed that, on a number of occasions in the last half hour, when asked by Committee members about how immigration officers should react in certain circumstances, you have clearly made the point that it depends on the type of crime and on the situation and it depends on this or that. I put it to you as a logical point that, if some discretion is required, the Bill cannot legislate for each individual circumstance. Therefore, it necessarily has to be vague.
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
Of course, the legislation states that the Secretary of State can make regulations, which would presumably give the framework that you were looking for.
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
I am sure that the Secretary of State will listen to that.
Concerning your general point on training, which probably applies throughout the Bill, do you not agree that you do not need to legislate for improving training standards? It could well go in parallel with what we are discussing today.
Kitty Ussher (Labour, Burnley)
Thank you.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Does the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association accept that, broadly speaking, too many people are coming to this country claiming to be asylum seekers when they are not and that the Government have a right and a duty to try to tackle this?
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Does the association not also accept, then, that if asylum seekers are given the right to work—or rather, if those who claim to be asylum seekers on arrival are given the right to work—that will simply encourage more people to come here claiming to be asylum seekers and make it even harder to direct the help that all of us agree should go to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution?
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Do you not accept that that will surely increase the number of people coming into this country and claiming asylum?
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
But making it easy, by making it legal for people to work, will surely increase the number of people who want to come.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
So we should try to discourage that from happening.
Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough)
I am puzzled that the anecdotes that you give, Mr. Thomas, do not seem to be substantiated by any statistical foundation whatever. The Government, in many dozens of written parliamentary answers, have been unable to tell us, as has been officially confirmed by the Home Office, how many illegal immigrants are in this country, how many people are working, how many failed asylum seekers there are and where they are dispersed to. With all due respect, it is supposition and anecdote that you are basing your arguments on.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We come now to the subject of the deportation of foreign criminals, and I think that Kerry McCarthy has our first question.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
You make some points in your submissions about the human rights of people who might be subjected to these provisions on the automatic presumption of deportation. What balance do you think should be struck between the need to protect the public from such individuals and any rights that they may have?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
For example, if somebody who had indefinite leave to remain committed a very serious offence, do you not think that there are circumstances in which their rights as a refugee should be disregarded because of the seriousness of what they have done?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
What should be done with somebody who is a danger to the community because they are likely to reoffend, but who is given asylum on the basis that they would be subject to such treatment? Are you saying that they should be able to rely on the convention and remain in this country?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Do you envisage a situation in which the gravity of what they have done would override that?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
On the interaction between the clauses before us and other legislation, you have been quite critical of the need for extra legislative provisions. Will you say a little more about that?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
We are pushed for time and so I shall leave it there.
Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat, Rochdale)
On exceptions, clause 29(3) deals with children. What is your view on the fact that the provisions focus on the date of conviction, rather than on the date of the commission of the offence?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
On this subject, you said that the word “automatic” is a misnomer and that it is in effect an attempt to remove from the Home Secretary responsibility for taking such decisions. What would you prefer to see instead?
Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)
Clearly, this matter has been a huge problem for successive Home Secretaries. Do you think that the clauses before us would improve the situation?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We have one minute left.
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
Is it right that, under clauses 30 and 31, the Secretary of State cannot deport someone if they are appealing, or have time left in which to do so?
James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)
Do you think that the Bill would be improved if there were to be a time limit on that, beyond the period of appeal?