Immigration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2013.

Examination of Witness

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We will not sit in private. We are all know what we are doing, so we will get started straight away without the pantomime of removing the public to sit in private. That seems to me to be eminently reasonable. I welcome our first witness, who is from Justice. Would you like to identify yourself for the record?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Thank you for joining us.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Angela, can you open the discussion by saying whether there are any elements of the Bill that you welcome and, if there are elements that you are concerned about, can you highlight them?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Can you give an indication of your assessment of the current quality of Home Office appeals?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

To put some flesh on the Bill, can you give some examples of the type of issue that currently is upheld on appeal but which, if the Bill’s provisions come into place, will be in effect without appeal?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Government’s intention is that there will be administrative review during the passage of any—in effect—internal appeal in the Home Office. Do you think things could be done to improve the quality of administrative review? Could amendments be made to the Bill, if the Government, of whom I am not a member, continued with the current proposals?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Just for my benefit again, what would be the assessed cost of a judicial review to anybody who currently was liable for a potential appeal under the tier tribunal system that is in place now, but who would not have that right in the future?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That was the point I was making. I welcome an assessment of the 50% who are currently having their appeals upheld. How many of that 50% would have the independent means on an average year to undertake the costly exercise of a judicial review?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Finally, in relation to article 8 provisions in clause 14, could you give us Justice’s view of what they will mean in practice?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I would like to ask two or three questions on the points you have just finished on, Ms Patrick, on article 8. I absolutely agree with you that article 8, being a qualified right, is a balancing exercise, where the courts have to weigh the individual facts of the case against the public interest, but surely the question is: who decides what the public interest is and what weight you should put on various factors? What the Government are proposing is that it should be for Parliament to set out what the public interest should be. Then, when judges are balancing the public interest in the individual facts of the case, they know very clearly what Parliament has decided the public interest is on behalf of the British people. If we do not do that, who determines what the public interest is? Is that not an unfair burden to place on judges?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I am not terribly clearer after that than I was at the beginning, because it seems to me, from reading the clauses in the Bill, that there are exceptions that allow judges to consider the specific facts of a case—the concern in your evidence was on there being a bright-line rule with no exceptions. All we are doing is setting out the weight that judges should place on the public interest in relation to certain factors, and the judges have asked us to do that.

When, as you know, we put the article 8 provisions in the immigration rules last year—both Houses of Parliament agreed those immigration rules unanimously—some judges, but not all judges, including Mr Justice Blake of the Upper Tribunal felt that the immigration rules were

“a weak form of Parliamentary scrutiny,”

and effectively invited Parliament, if it wished to do so, to make the rules clear in primary legislation. That is what Parliament is doing, so I am still not clear about your objections to this part of the Bill, given that there are exceptions and we are simply setting out the public interest—clearly, the private interest will be determined by the facts.

William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)

Angela, can we pursue that point in a bit more depth? In what circumstances do you think the courts in this country might draw on human rights jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights and other countries, as they are entitled to do under the Human Rights Act? If the Bill is passed, would case law still otherwise prevail, and are there any points relating to the rights of the child—I am thinking about the UN convention on the rights of the child—that might lead the courts to such a conclusion?

William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)

Are you concerned that the Bill, and particularly the provisions on remedies, might lead to problems with article 46 of the ECHR, which provides the right to an effective remedy? One part of the Government—the Home Office—is effectively suggesting going towards judicial review, but the Ministry of Justice intends to restrict judicial review. Is there a danger that those two things together could put us in breach of our international obligations?

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

Given that there has been widespread public concern about some judgments on the basis of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, do you think it is reasonable for Parliament to seek to express those concerns—we try to do that democratically—by amending legislation in clause 14?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

Can I clarify a couple of quick points? When you first gave evidence, you appeared to suggest that the changes would be more expensive than the existing judicial review process. Did I mishear you?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

I am most grateful to you for clarifying that.

Do you accept that, given the comments made by Mr Justice Blake in the case you referred to—and by other judges, to be fair—this is fundamentally about Parliament addressing a flaw judges have identified with the rules?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

You rightly said you believe that our judges should be making the decision. I agree with you, but the reality is that that decision should be based on UK law, subject to interpretation under article 8. Are we agreed?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am sorry that I have to truncate the session, but we have come to the end of the time allocated for this witness.

Ms Patrick, thank you for taking the trouble and the time to come to see us today and for giving the Committee the benefit of your opinions.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We will now hear oral evidence from Liberty. For the benefit of the record, could you please identify yourself?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Thank you very much for joining us.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good afternoon, Rachel. Liberty has raised a number of questions about clause 1 in particular and the power of removal. That clause is linked to schedule 1, which relates to the reasonable use of force, as defined by the legislation. Can you outline your views on the impact of that clause and schedule?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Do you have a definition in your mind of what reasonable force is?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Are there any safeguards, suggestions or amendments that are, given the Government’s intention, worthy of consideration by the Committee?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Do you have any other concerns that you wish to share with the Committee about clause 1 and the power of removal generally?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

May I probe the evidence that you submitted on the provision of services? You said in your evidence that

“banning the provision of services to those with irregular status,”—

by irregular, I presume that you mean people who are illegal immigrants and therefore breaking our immigration laws—

“represents an unwelcome interference with freedom of conscience.”

Why do you think that it is unreasonable for Parliament to decide that people who are in the country illegally—in breach of the law—should not receive free treatment on the NHS nor access other services that enable them to stay here in violation of the law?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I think we will focus the debate on what is in the Bill, because that is what the Government have set out. You did not answer my question: if people are here in breach of the law, why should others—including, reading between the lines of your evidence, public servants who are dispensing services paid for by the taxpayer—be entitled to deliver public services at the taxpayer’s expense to people who have no right to them? Why should preventing those individuals from doing that be an outrageous breach of their freedom of conscience? Why is it unreasonable to say that they cannot do that? I really do not understand the argument. That is what you said in the evidence.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I will have one last go. I still do not think that you have answered my question, although you answered a lot of questions I did not ask. On your point about freedom of conscience, we are not saying that people cannot continue to hold their views—they can continue to have whatever views they like—but Parliament sets the law on whether people should or should not have the right to be in the country.

Your brief talked not only about private services in relation to landlords, but the provision of public services. I do not understand what is unreasonable about saying to a public servant, delivering public services at the taxpayers’ expense, that it is for Parliament to set out who is entitled to them. It should not be up to individual public servants to make judgments about who is entitled to public services in a way that is at variance with rules set by Parliament. Your evidence seems to say that it is appropriate for people to make such judgments, and that it is outrageous for Parliament to set the rules.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We have gone from having a dearth of interest to six Members, including a Minister, seeking to ask questions in 15 minutes. For the moment, will you confine yourselves to one question each? If we have some time at the end, you may have another bite at the cherry.

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

You talked about reasonable force, but I want to ask you about reasonable time. My experience as a constituency MP is that immigration cases not uncommonly last for a decade or more. Is that unreasonable? From the taxpayers’ point of view, is it reasonable to impose a time limit on decisions, so that applicants get an answer in a reasonable time, and taxpayers get the appropriate action, if the application is refused, in a reasonable time?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I want to pick up on the suggestion that this is somehow a creeping identity card. As you will recognise, there is considerable opposition that concept, at least on the Government side of the Committee. There is surely a difference between an ID card, which is proof of who someone is, irrespective of circumstances, and people providing sufficient information in order to secure the particular public service that they want. People provide information about themselves if they want an Oyster card, for example; and to be on a GP’s list, a person has to tell the GP who they are and where they live. There is nothing particularly peculiar about the provision.

It would be extraordinary for a landlord to let someone have access to their property without knowing who they were and where they came from; they must find that out now. Indeed, we heard evidence from the UK Association of Letting Agents about the rigour that letting agents apply to finding out who people when potentially letting properties. I do not really believe that asking for information in order to give access to a particular service is somehow a stealth way of getting to an ID card.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I am a bit puzzled about the issue of bringing in ID cards, given that 80% of British people have passports. Having sadly lost my ID card, I quite often have to carry my passport around to prove my identity. Given that section 14 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 explicitly stated that there was no requirement for an ID card to be presented to access a public service—it explicitly ruled that out, so that people did not have to have one to access a public service—and given that the proposal in the Bill is that people be required to provide certain documents to access some services, would not a voluntary ID card be a better, more efficient and cheaper process for the Minister to adopt?

Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative, Thurrock)

I want to turn to the concerns you have expressed about sham marriages, and the application of the Bill to the Anglican Church. Obviously, if someone presents themselves to their local vicar and says that they want to get married, the Church has an obligation to marry them. Equally, it is incumbent on the officiating cleric to satisfy themselves that the marriage is legitimate. When we get into the issue of mixed marriages involving different nationalities, we are putting the Anglican clergy in the difficult position of making a judgment. Do you not think that it is an improvement that we are giving them more protection under the law? I have certainly spoken to vicars who found a conflict between meeting their obligations to marry people in their parish who wish to marry, and being clear in their mind that the marriage is legitimate.

William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)

Turning to clause 11 and the provision on the restriction of statutory appeal rights in immigration and asylum cases, is it Liberty’s contention that the provision would enhance the state’s power above that of the judiciary and the individual? If so, what are your views on how we might correct the half of all decisions made by the Home Office that must, at the moment, be reversed by the first-tier immigration tribunal?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

Ms Robinson, you indicated to a colleague that it was only in relation to landlords that you regarded the measure as unprincipled and as an unwelcome interference with freedom of conscience. Paragraph 53 of your organisation’s evidence—the passage to which he referred—says:

“It is also unprincipled to place requirements on landlords, lettings agents, healthcare professionals, lawyers and others to actively enforce the Government’s immigration policy…banning the provision of services to those with irregular status, represents an unwelcome interference with freedom of conscience.”

May I invite you to correct the record? Your assertions go wider than simply landlords; you are talking about all public servants. As part of that, do you accept that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with asking people to comply with the law, and that this is not in reality an issue of freedom of conscience?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

Paragraph 53—the first two lines and the last two. You indicated that your point related only to landlords, and it clearly does not. Secondly, you indicated—in a broad answer, I accept—that this was an issue of freedom of conscience. I invite you to correct the record and, secondly, accept that there is nothing wrong with asking people to comply with the law, and that this is not a freedom-of-conscience issue.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

You highlighted the importance of due process in your submission. I do not think anybody in this Committee Room will disagree with you on that. Do you think it is in the interests of due process that it should be balanced? I mention that with particular reference to clause 14, which deals with rebalancing article 8 rights under the European convention on human rights.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

Balanced in the public interest in relation to article 8.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated to Liberty. Thank you for joining us this morning, Ms Robinson.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We now take oral evidence from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. For the benefit of the record, will you identify yourself, please?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good afternoon, Ms Grant. Thank you very much for joining us.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good afternoon, Saira. It is clear from your written submission that you are against many aspects of the Bill. Given your broad opposition, I am keen to focus on whether the Committee could examine any positive amendments. I will talk through three areas quickly. First, we have clause 1 and schedule 1 on the removal of individuals from the United Kingdom. Do you have any suggestions to improve the Government’s proposals in that area?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I accept that the objection is there in principle; I just want to see if there is anything that we can look at.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The second issue is the landlord checks to be introduced by the Government. I find some difficulties in that, but I would be interested in whether you could make any suggestions that might assist the Committee to table amendments to help the Government achieve their objectives in a more fair and just way.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Opposition have several concerns about the measures, but I want to know whether things can be done to any measures in the Bill to help the Government meet their objective while providing some protection around some of the issues that we might both be concerned about. This is about scrutiny of the Bill as much as it is about its principle. Are there are any amendments that you would want the Committee to consider that would assist the Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

This is my final point. On the NHS provisions, is it fair for the Government, potentially with the support of Parliament, to levy a charge on an individual who is coming to this country to study or to work but who has not paid taxes to contribute to the funding of hospitals, such as St Thomas’ hospital, across the river from this building?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Just by way of clarification on your point about health, you will know, Ms Grant, that there were two consultations on health. One was by the Home Office and related to these provisions, and the Department of Health did a separate consultation, to which your organisation also responded. On some of the issues that you have raised, quite rightly, in relation to the current rules and being more efficient at collecting money and things like that, I would like to reassure you that the Department of Health will be bringing forward proposals to deal with those, which is why they are not in the Bill.

Let me deal with the specific point about the charge. Obviously, students, who make up quite a significant proportion, are not necessarily working or paying taxes here at all, so I do not think it is unreasonable, but you were worried about our competitive position. Could you tell me which other countries outside the European Union allow students to go to their countries and receive free health care from the moment they arrive? I am not away of any.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

We have clearly reached a different conclusion. I think I am right in saying the Committee did not necessarily find the evidence from the universities enormously compelling regarding the balance between the cost of university education and a modest health levy that remains competitive, but we will have to disagree on that. It never ceases to amaze me how witnesses always manage to talk about hundreds of millions of pounds as if that were a trivial sum.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

My constituency casework includes quite a lot of immigration cases. I frequently come across people who have paid a significant sum to solicitors to help them with their case and who may not have received a fair service. Do you welcome the Bill’s provision for tighter regulation of those who give advice on immigration issues?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

Ms Grant, if I heard correctly, you discussed at the outset of your evidence how a 12-month-plus criminal sentence should, in theory, result in automatic deportation, subject to other matters, but that there was then a separate legal process to assess whether there was to be a removal. Is that correct?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

Your criticism was that the changes would take away the process that then considers whether there should be removal.

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

I used to be a criminal barrister, and I did more than 300 criminal trials. Would you not agree that a 12-month sentence from a judge, particularly for a first offence, is a pretty major sentence?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

Yes. Are we not in agreement, as well, that if we allow a judge, by reason of the changes in the rules, to assess the issues on only one occasion, the judge would, in determining whether to give a 12-month or 11-month sentence, for example, be aware of the changes in the rules? The defendant’s legal aid advocate would most definitely know that the implication of a 12-month sentence was that automatic deportation was much more likely. Do you accept that?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

But are we not always in favour of giving judges more power?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

I am possibly being slightly sardonic. The point, I would suggest, is that a judge still has control of the sentence and the consequences that flow. Do you accept that?

Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham)

You have made your point. Thank you.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

If there are no further questions from Members, that brings us to the end of the business for the morning. Ms Grant, thank you very much indeed for joining us; we are most grateful to you. The Committee will take further evidence this afternoon at 2 o’clock.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good afternoon. We will now take evidence from the Home Office. Mr Harper, would you please identify yourself?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good afternoon, Minister. I reassure you that I will not engage in political debate this afternoon; I want to ask a couple of questions that might stop us or encourage us in tabling an amendment, depending on the answers. I start with proposed new section 10(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as set out in clause 1, which states that a

“person’s family may also be removed from the United Kingdom”.

Will that apply to British and EU citizens?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Would it also mean that a foreign national on a temporary visa or measure would not be removed, if they had the right of abode in the UK?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On clause 2, which is on enforcement powers, do you intend to publish guidance on the use of any new powers that Parliament may ultimately authorise?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Thank you. Clause 11 deals with first-tier tribunals, which the Bill aims to abolish. Do you have any proposals for improving the decision making in areas covered by the first-tier tribunal appeal? Evidence suggests that 50% of appeals are upheld.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Thanks for that. Clauses 15 to 32 deal with accommodation and landlords. You indicated that you would publish guidance on that; can you assure the Committee that you will do so before we consider those clauses next week?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Will you clarify for the Committee that if Parliament approves clauses 15 to 32, you intend to pilot those clauses’ impact before full implementation?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In the schedule 3 provisions about student accommodation, there is an exemption for—I use the phrase carefully—a “hall of residence”. Could you give the Committee a definition of what you think is a hall of residence, in relation to university-managed student accommodation?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In paragraph 8 of schedule 3, you give an exemption to:

“An agreement to which the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies.”

I am genuinely interested to hear why, if I were an illegal immigrant who sought to rent a property from a landlord and was refused, I would not then look for an alternative avenue, such as a mobile home. They are unregulated in this Bill, and seem to me to be an easy place to find refuge.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There may be an amendment to facilitate debate on that point.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

You will hear about it in the morning anyway, so it is hardly notice.

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

Minister, I want to ask about definitions. The thread running through the Bill is that there should be access to the NHS, housing and so on only for people who are legally entitled to be here. In practice, as our constituency case loads show, this is not a black and white situation, because people will have applications in the system, and the system is slow to deal with applications. We might as well acknowledge the reality, which is that cases can go on for a decade or more. A constituent e-mailed me just the other night; he has had leave to remain for three years, and has applied for that to be renewed. He has not yet received an answer, and in the meantime, the three years have come to an end. That is not uncommon. Under the Bill, will someone like him be prohibited from renting accommodation, opening a bank account and doing the other things that are covered?

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

The circumstances are complex, but I would also like to ask about asylum. A not uncommon scenario is one in which a person has applied, been refused, applied again, been refused and applied again—it can go on for years. The fact that it can go on for so long does not serve anybody well—not the taxpayer, the public or even the claimant, although I believe some people do it to extend the process. In the case of someone like that, the system has said no but allowed them to submit a further application, so they still have not had a final, final answer. This is not uncommon or some rarity; there are thousands of these cases. Under the Bill, what will be that person’s status when the system has not given them a final answer?

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

It is quite hard for them to prove to their landlord, is it not?

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

Do you think there is a case for putting somewhere in the Bill some of the clarification that you have just given on who counts as being a legal person—for the time being, at least—and who counts as being a clearly illegal person?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

As I am not a barrister or one of those people who knows the technical aspects of the Bill, can you explain what the difference is between a pilot and a roll-out?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

So if I am right about what you are saying, as you roll it out, you might tweak it and change it, and if it does not work, you might stop it?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Essentially, it is a phased pilot roll-out.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Obviously, I am from Scotland, and the judicial system in Scotland is not the same as in England. We have found that judicial reviews take an awful lot longer in Scotland than in England. What kind of discussions are you having with your counterparts north of the border?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

It would be helpful if you could include the Committee in any correspondence that would help us to clarify exactly what the situation is between Scotland and the rest of the country.

I would also like to ask about the treatment of asylum seekers whose applications have failed but who, through no fault of their own and no fault of this country, cannot be sent back to their country of origin, either because the country will not accept them or because they cannot go back for some other reason. What will happen to them?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

That would be fine if they had the finances to pay for it. I assume they came here, in a lot of cases, for various economic reasons. Therefore the chances are that they do not have the finances to pay for these health measures. I have a number of constituents—or asylum seekers who are not constituents but should be—who have been in the country for a number of years. In some cases, they have children who are now in school because they have been here so long. It is difficult to see how we can stop these people if they still cannot return to their country of origin. What are we supposed to do other than, perhaps, embrace them and give them employment?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

In Scotland, you would not be able to do that anyway.

Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)

Minister, I would like to refer to clause 14. In some of the evidence that we heard in the previous session, it was clear that there is a degree of hostility to the proposals in the Bill. Could you state for the record and for clarity what in particular this clause will address in terms of public benefit?

Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)

Do you think that, in the eyes of the public, clause 14 will bring a degree of fairness when it comes to the public debate? I refer to the submission to the Committee from Justice, which says that it regrets the politically charged nature of the debate on article 8. However, we heard in evidence this morning that the concept of fairness came up frequently. The public obviously feel that there is a degree of unfairness in much of the judicial decision making that has taken place.

William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)

If Parliament is being asked to endorse a policy in legislation, it has to do so on the basis that that policy is both workable and represents a wise use of taxpayers’ money. In respect of clauses 15 to 32 and schedule 3, concerning residential tenancies, may I refer you to page 9 of the overarching impact assessment produced by your Department? Table 3 lists the 10-year impact costs of the policy on private rented accommodation as £105.9 million, but the benefits as only £43 million. Will the Minister confirm that that represents an overall loss to the taxpayer of nearly £63 million?

William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)

But that particular policy will cost the taxpayer money. That is clear from the impact assessment.

I turn to the other part of the burden of that policy. Again, the impact assessment makes it clear that the impact on small businesses, such as landlords and letting agencies, is going to be £4.7 million per year. We heard on Tuesday from representatives of the landlord federations and lettings agencies across the UK that the strong likelihood is that the final burden of that policy will find its way into the pockets of tenants. I put it to you that with the cost of living crisis that all us of experience when we return to our constituencies, it seems strange to impose a burden on business and additional red tape that will eventually be borne by tenants across the UK.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I have a couple of questions about the practicalities. I have had cause to use the employers’ hotline, so I have an idea of what the model for the Home Office hotline is. Do you have any idea what the hours of operation would be? Would there be an e-mail option for the hotline?

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Would that simply be with the Home Office reference number, or would a form similar to the one for employers have to be submitted? Once you add in extra steps like that, the time increases.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I am thinking about the client group that Mr McFadden was talking about, of whom I represent a large number—people who are waiting. If you are an employer and someone comes to see you saying that their leave is running out, from the moment they submit a new application, you have to wait two weeks before you send off a particular form to the Home Office. They then write back to confirm that the person has put in an application. That can be off-putting for employers, but it is far too long for landlords. You are making general promises—I do not mean that impolitely—about making it all work, but have you thought through those practicalities? Is there anything more you can tell us today?

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I should have declared my interest—sorry, Sir Roger. I forgot to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

If I may say so, Minister, for many of my constituents these measures are not going to work practically. Landlords will just not be bothered, because of the difficulty. Also, a lot of my constituents are not in that bracket—students will probably be affected more.

On re-application, I know that for all sorts of administrative management purposes people are not allowed to re-apply prior to a month before their leave is due to run out. In my eight years as the MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, I have not yet come across a case that has been resolved in that month. I was a Home Office Minister and in your shoes, so I take some responsibility for our not getting to that point, but has any thought been given to allowing a temporary residence permit? They do exist—I recently dealt with someone fighting a child custody case who had been given short-term residency cards repeatedly, so they are in the administrative system. Or has any thought been given to allowing a re-application further ahead than one month? That picks up on Mr McFadden’s concerns, and would make things much more clear-cut.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Well yes, but the landlords might not like that.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Speaking for my constituents, I have to say that many of them would welcome that in day-to-day life more generally. Many of them are losing jobs because they do not have certain leave to remain, so there is a very big impact on families in my constituency.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I have one final question—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for this afternoon’s sitting. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for answering questions.

The Committee will sit again to consider the Bill next Tuesday at 8.55 am. I am advised that we should be in Committee Room 9.