Immigration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2015.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Before we begin, may I remind everyone to switch electronic devices to silent? Also, for reasons I do not understand, we may not bring tea or coffee into the room.

We will now consider a motion to amend the programme resolution agreed on 20 October. The motion is on the amendment paper and stands in the name of the Minister. Standing Orders provide that he may make such a motion and that if any member of the Committee signifies their objection to it, the proceedings on it will lapse. If there are no objections, I call the Minister to move the motion.

Examination of Witnesses

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I should remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme resolution the Committee has agreed. We have until 1 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Just before I call the first Member, I should remind witnesses that these are the Minister’s favourite sessions, because he is allowed to ask questions, rather than having to answer them.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Thank you, panel, for coming to give evidence to us this morning. I want to ask about appeals, bail and enforcement action by immigration officers, and I will take them in that order. May I start with appeals, and ask for your views on the quality of the initial decision making by the Home Office—by UK Visas and Immigration—before we get to the question of appeals?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Liberty has suggested that in the period April to June 2015, 39% of immigration appeals were allowed at the first-tier tribunal. Does that chime with your experience?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Thank you. Do any other panel members want to comment on that question before I move on?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Before we move on, I think that Craig Whittaker wants to come in on that point.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

What percentage of those who apply actually go to appeal?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

I understand that, but what I am trying to establish is that if it is 40% of those who apply, but the appeal process involves only 5% of all applicants, it is actually a relatively small number. I was just trying to put it into some perspective.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Let us move on to the question of appeal and the extension of the “remove first, appeal later” provisions, which is in the Immigration Bill. Will you give the Committee an indication of the practical differences between what is involved in appealing in country here and appealing once you have been removed, just in relation to the nuts and bolts of it? Some of us around the room are lawyers. Some of us have been involved in cases, but not everybody has, so will you give us a practical example of what actually happens if you are here, and what is envisaged, or what does happen, if you are removed, so that people get a sense of the difference between the two?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Do any other members of the panel have any comments on the practical issues?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Following on from that, obviously some changes were made a year or so ago. Can the panel give us their view on the impact of the changes to “remove first, appeal later”? I think that there is an outstanding Court of Appeal case that it might be useful to know a little about.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

May I just make it clear—I am sure that we have not strayed on this—that we should not be talking about any active appeals? I do not think that we were; I think they were historic appeals. We just need to bear that in mind.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

On that point, Mr Yeo, I may have misheard you, and if I have, my apologies. The case that you just cited involved a gentleman whom I think you described as a foreign criminal. He had been through the prison system here and he had been deported. Is it, therefore, your assertion that Government should potentially put at risk people on our high streets in all our constituencies, towns and cities for such a person, or that they should allow them to conduct their appeal at least in their country of origin? If it is the former, that would strike me as a rather irresponsible stance for any Government of any colour to take—but I may have misheard you.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Sorry, I was not asking about the validity of his case; I was merely drawing attention to his status. Okay, his slate was wiped clean, but he had been a criminal, he had been found guilty and he had been jailed. Correct?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

With respect, Sir, he did, through an appeal post-deportation. Whether he availed himself of that opportunity would have been entirely up to him. Correct?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I will ask a supplementary.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The Minister has been very patient; he wants to ask a question.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Sir Keir highlighted the Court of Appeal case; I think I am right in saying that. Mr Gill, I believe that you were acting in respect of that case. Am I right in saying that some of the concerns that you have expressed to this Committee were considered as part of that hearing?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

The reason I asked that question, Mr Gill, was that obviously a judgment was handed down in the Court of Appeal last week; I have certainly seen a note of that case. Does that judgment represent the current law in respect of the assessment of the principles of the Immigration Act 2014?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

If I can take you back to my original question on the legal principles of the operation of the Immigration Act that you were challenging just then, the Court upheld the soundness of the principles in the context of human rights legislation.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Just to clarify something you said, Mr Gill: this character broke down the door, scared his girlfriend a little bit but did not harm her, and got two years for that. Is that what you are saying?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

That does not sound practical to me. That is why I am asking the question. Which court in this country would give someone two years in prison for breaking down a door and scaring his girlfriend?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

So it is not true?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Well, it is a poor example in my opinion, Mr Gill, because actually that is not a relevant case. We are here to take evidence from you. Making stories up along the way is not evidence.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I know that this goes right to the heart of the issue, but we have four other panel members and we have been speaking for quite a long time on this particular point. Going back to you, Mr Starmer, do you want to move on a bit?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I have one final question, about support appeals, but I take the point, Mr Bone; if the panel members cannot deal with the question we can move on even more quickly. Asylum support provisions are being changed—specifically, the support provided after the exhaustion of the asylum process. Will panel members give an assessment of the quality of the decisions on support at the moment? Some briefings have suggested that the success rate of appeals against decisions on support was as high as 60%. Can any of the panel members deal with that? That is obviously a very high success rate; by success rate, I mean that the decision is either overturned, withdrawn or has to be retaken—in other words, the original decision is disturbed. Is that a figure that anyone can give any evidence about?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

It is one thing to remove a right of appeal where there is a very low rate of success, but another to remove it where there is very high rate of success. Does the 60% rate I quoted, which has been given in papers before us, surprise you?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Just as a general proposition, in relation to administrative decision making, a 60% success rate, or disturbance of the decision made, is very high, is it not?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

May I move to—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Before we move on, does any other member of the Committee wish to ask a question on this particular point?

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North East)

A number of you have mentioned the quality of the initial decision making; I think Mr Gill referred to it as being unspeakable. It would be useful for us to know—it would certainly be useful for the Minister to know—what it is that you think is making the quality of the decision making so poor. What sort of mistakes are being made? What do you think needs to happen to improve the quality of the decision making?

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North East)

Are you suggesting that the decision made initially is poor because the law is so complex and those who are making the decision are not equipped?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I had Sarah Champion down. Do you want to go now or later?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I was going to move to a separate topic, if that is okay, Mr Bone.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Why not?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I would like to move to the subject of bail. How many cases are detained each year? How many are ultimately removed from the UK and how many are granted permission to remain?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Mr Phelps, could I stay with you? If the rest of the panel want to chip in, they may. There have been suggestions that provisions in the Bill would fuel more unlawful detention litigation. What is your view?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Does the rest of the panel agree with that sentiment?

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

Am I right in thinking, though, that the Government are reviewing the whole issue of detention in parallel with this Bill?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am not quite sure that that last bit was welcome news to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but we will wait to see.

May I ask each of you to take up your fantasy job? Close your eyes and pretend you are the Home Secretary. It might be your nightmare job—I do not know—but let us suppose it is your fantasy job. We have heard a lot about something to do with principle, something to do with process and something to do with practicality. Imagine you had a clean sheet of paper. Would it be easier for the Government, effectively, to declare an amnesty for everybody who is here now and to start from scratch? Or could they go still further and have no controls at all—effectively, Schengen, but wider—with people just coming to the country as and when, and no longer coming when the jobs run out? That would seem a lot easier.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

For the purpose of Mr Hoare’s question, let us turn to Home Secretary Berry.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

What is your personal view?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

That has to be the first time that a Queen’s Counsel has not felt qualified to comment on something.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Just to come back to Mr Gill, prior to my election in my present constituency, I fought Cardiff South and Penarth, which is my home city. Cardiff has always been a calm city, with lots of nationalities and no racial tension at all, but it was very evident in the 2010 campaign, when I stood there, that a number of the elders of very stable communities—Somali, Sikh, Hindu and so on—were saying, “The Government have to get a handle on this.” This is on your cohesion point. There was growing anxiety among people who had been here for a very long time, who had been accepted and who had an absolute right to be here. They were starting to feel uneasy that, because the problem had got slightly out of control, everybody was being put in the same bracket. Those struck me as interesting comments, coming from a community from which one might not have expected them. It certainly was not leading in any way to a more cohesive and calm society.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am grateful. Thank you.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Six Members are trying to get in, so just bear that in mind—we have 35 minutes to go.

Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

I have two questions, the first of which is on the Bill’s evidence base. I sent the Minister a number of questions, one of which Mr Gill referenced earlier, on the evidence base that the Minister was unable to answer. For example, one was about evidence relating to the size of businesses employing illegal migrants, as the Bill focuses largely on small and medium-sized enterprises. How strong does the panel feel that the evidence base is in the Bill?

Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Would the rest of panel like to comment?

Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

My second question is about enforcement. What concerns do you have about the new enforcement powers that immigration officers will be given, particularly in relation to their lack of training compared with police officers, and the lack of judicial oversight?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

I want to clarify a couple of things that were said a little earlier. Mr Flynn and Mr Berry, you were talking about migrants in general, and I presume you were not talking about the vast majority of migrants who come to this country in a legal position. I just want to clarify that you were talking about potentially illegal immigrants, rather than the vast majority of immigrants, who are legal.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

So we are talking about illegal immigrants, then. I am a little bit confused about what you were talking about. I do not think that anybody questions for one minute that migrants play an incredible role in our country. Just for clarity, I wanted to make sure we knew whether you were talking about illegal immigrants—or potentially illegal immigrants.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

So potentially illegal immigrants, then.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

The point I was trying to make is that it is still a very small part of the overall migration to this country, but that is not my real question. For my real question, I just want to take you back— I think it was you, Mr Yeo, who mentioned abuse within the system when we were talking about detention. I apologise if it was not you, but it was a while ago now. Is there any evidence that there is abuse within the detention centre? I am struggling to find any.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Do any of you have any evidence that there is any abuse in the detention centre?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

I do not want to undermine or belittle the six cases by any stretch of the imagination, but from the thousands who have been through the system in the past four years, which is what you mentioned, it is an incredibly small part. It would therefore be very difficult to say that the system is broken. Is that right?

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

Could I follow up on Mr Newlands’ question about enforcement powers to which Mr Yeo gave a fairly powerful response? The provisions of the Bill give immigration officers what might be described as police-like powers. Could you reflect on the different way in which immigration officers are subject to challenge, scrutiny and oversight in the exercise of their powers in contrast with the police and the exercise of theirs currently?

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I wonder if anybody on the panel could develop that point about proper scrutiny. I am conscious, even within the regulatory framework that the police exercise, that careless use of police powers often has a much more significant impact in terms of community relations and tensions. I do not understand what checks and balances are in place for immigration officers. Which ones do you think ought to be in place?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Thank you. I am conscious that we still have quite a lot of Members to get in, so I am going to move on—Kelly Tolhurst.

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

Just a quick one—Mr Yeo, you have used the phrase “bad decisions” a number of times. Could you clarify your definition of a bad decision?

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

To follow on from that, do you regard a bad decision as something that has been overturned by an appeal?

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

Okay. So what do you think is required to enable decision making to be improved in such instances?

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

Can I make a comment? Thank you for that. I would say one thing. Every day, people in this country break the law, intentionally or unintentionally, and cause death, and it wrecks their lives—British citizens, who have a legal right to be here. I was not really comfortable with the way you tried to make a death caused by road accident a lower-level activity, because—

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Chair—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Thank you, Mr Hoare. Gosh, I am surrounded by a lot of lawyers, which is not good for an accountant. There are two Members who have been patiently waiting. With the permission of the Committee, I will call them and see what time we have over for the rest. Mims Davies.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Mr Yeo, I have read with interest your blog site, Free Movement. That is quite an interesting title. Why did you come up with that?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

We now have a system of complex rules and, it appears, really complex cases. That seems to be the root of criticism today that we are dealing with very complex rules that do not seem to fit the very complex cases. There is a certain irony in that. The detention system that we have was created very much under the previous Government. We are seeking a clarification of matters. Would you not accept that was the case? If you are saying that things are getting too complex, is this not allowing people to be very clear about things going forward?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Is it not fair of me to sit here thinking that we have really got a culture that has grown up over the past few years of complex cases requiring complex rules? I suppose we are trying to work out whether we have a fair system, or whether we have a lot of people involved in complex cases, allowing abuse of the rules, without the Government giving a chance for people to have clarity on the rules. Do you see where I am coming from? It appears we have complex cases and potential abuse of the rules. Therefore, most people on the outside whom I speak to want to have a clear immigration policy. Those people coming in would expect the same.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

That is very helpful. Quickly to Mr Flynn, you said that there is an element of templating that is coming here. Do you not believe that that is probably in some ways helpful, given what Mr Yeo has just said?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

But we do lead more complex and complicated lives, and it appears that the people we are dealing with do as well.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am sorry to interrupt, but in order to get the next Member in, I must press on.

Byron Davies (Conservative, Gower)

I would like to ask the panel a more general question concerning a group of people who have not been mentioned yet: the great British public. Over a period of several years of knocking on doors speaking to many thousands of people, the issue of immigration has not failed to raise its head, hence the Bill before us. This issue comes up all the time. What assessment would you as a panel make of people abusing the immigration system?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Sorry, Mr Flynn, but we have got two minutes left. Mr Berry.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I will stop you there. He was asking what abuses there are.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank all the witnesses. Clearly, we could have gone on for much longer, but I appreciate all your comments.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the No Recourse to Public Funds Network. We have until 2.45 for this session. Welcome, witnesses. Please introduce yourselves for the record.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Before we start, do not be surprised if the Minister asks questions, because he can at this session. It is helpful if you speak into the microphone, because the acoustics are not always so good in this room.

Mr Starmer, do you want to start?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Thank you, witnesses, for coming in and helping us this afternoon. I want to start with the provisions in the Bill to remove support from those who have exhausted their asylum process. Until now there has been an ability to remove the support, but it has been rarely used. There was a pilot 10 years or so ago and it has been used rarely since then. Can you give the Committee your view on why the pilot was unsuccessful? I think it involved about 116 families and the net result was that very few, if any, of those families went voluntarily, which was the intended purpose. There was a possibly unintended consequence, which was that very many more went off the radar, and all sorts of other consequences followed. So can you give us your own view as to why you think that pilot was so unsuccessful?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

May I clarify one thing I think you just said? Did you say that a number of parents abandoned their children to the care of local authorities, so their children went into care?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Back in 2008, Mr Duncan Smith—obviously he is now in a different role—described it as a “failed policy”. That may explain why it has not been used since the pilot. Do you disagree with that conclusion?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

On that point, Mr Greenhalgh used the phrase behavioural change. I think we all understand what the Government are trying to achieve, but you do not believe that the Bill does that. What should be in the Bill to get the behavioural change that the Government are trying to achieve?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Perhaps I could just pick up on that last point and ask the witnesses about that engagement. Are you engaging with the Home Office and working through some of those details that you suggest may be needed?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

No doubt we will come on to the detail of some of the cross-governmental work that is taking place.

In your responses to the 2005 pilot, you expressed your thoughts on what occurred 10 years ago. Obviously, the world has moved on; other provisions exist in respect of identifying people, and encouraging or supporting them to depart. Also, the proposals in the Bill are different on the balance of engagement, with the onus being put on the family to show that there is a genuine obstacle to their departure, rather than the family not co-operating and the Home Office evidencing that. So a different approach is being taken. Do you see some of those differences as being relevant in the context of the effect and workability of the new proposals?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Obviously, we have talked about the new burdens assessment. Do any of the other witnesses wish to come in?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

A number of Members want to come in, but I interrupted Mr Starmer.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

May I go back to a couple of answers that were given? First, on streamlining the assessment process, I think that you mentioned two assessments. Is the first the assessment for asylum support in the first place and the second the assessment for the local authority, or are there two local authority assessments?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I just want to pick up a second point. Evidence has been given that the objective is that people leave, and therefore there is no burden on anyone to provide any support, but the evidence from the 2005 pilot seems to show pretty strongly that if that is the objective, this is not the way to achieve it. The likelihood is, therefore, that local authorities will be picking up the burden of supporting families, particularly those with children—children are children, in this.

You talked about a cost shift. What is the cost increase when asylum support is swapped for putting a child or family who are not going to go voluntarily—a child may not have any choice at all—on local authority support? It seems to me that under these provisions the cost will go up, because you take someone from one regime to a regime for which they have to go through two assessments, which someone has to carry out, and be put on to temporary support and further support. They could have become more destitute and so need more support. Am I right in thinking that this is not just a cost shunt—you are not simply moving cost x from the Home Office to the local authority but shifting and increasing it, so the cost to the taxpayer goes up?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

I want to drill down on the shift of the cost burden from the Home Office to local authorities. We already know that schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 broadly limits access to local authority social care for families anyway. Is there not a mechanism between local authorities and the Home Office that is triggered when a family present themselves and it becomes clear that they are in this country unlawfully, so that they get deported and the local authority does not have to shoulder the burden of the cost?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

I am a little confused. Are these families not here unlawfully—has it not been deemed through the court process that they are failed asylum seekers, or whatever category they are in, and so they are staying in the country unlawfully anyway? Are you saying that local authorities traditionally ignore that process and go beyond that? Why would you continue to offer support?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

So the cases that you are primarily dealing with do not apply to the Bill, because the Bill talks about removing support for those who have gone through the process and are deemed to be unlawful immigrants.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I have just a small question. Currently, when someone has failed their last appeal, what is the average time before they actually get deported? I just want an idea of the timescale in which they would be destitute.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Ball park. Is it hours, weeks, months?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

So, to clarify, if this legislation is enacted, your assumption is that a family would be without any support for a couple of months.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I am sorry. We are not trying to trip you up.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Does the Committee have any reason not to accept the figures in the Home Office’s August consultation document? I am referring to the public consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants. I am looking at the figures given for the scale of the situation: an estimated 15,000 refused asylum seekers with an estimated cost of £73 million. Do you accept those figures or have any concerns about them?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

That is very helpful. Thank you. I will preface my next question with a sentence from the UNHCR website:

“If the asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to make a claim in the first place, thereby benefitting both the host country and the refugees for whom the system is intended.”

If we are looking at 15,000 refused asylum seekers, with an associated cost that we might all agree on, does the panel think that we ought to do everything we can to reduce that number and those costs, to be able to fulfil the obligations to refugees that we all want to fulfil—the Prime Minister has set out that we want to—towards refugees coming in from other parts of the world at present, who of course have recourse to public funds, because they are under the temporary relocation scheme?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Would you just kindly repeat that number and say what the unit is?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I do not know whether any of the witnesses has those figures in a table, because it is very difficult to take them all down. If you could write to us, I would like to circulate them to the Committee.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Would the rest of the panel like to make any comment on this notion of having to reduce our undesired costs to be able to do more for those who most need it?

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I would just like to follow up a little on some of the witnesses’ answers to the Minister’s questions about the interaction that you have had with the Home Office. Mr Greenhalgh, you said in relation to the 2005 pilot by the then Labour Government that it not only failed but was counter- productive, in that it drove many people underground and made compliance more difficult. From the discussions that you have had with the Home Office, do you know what different measures the Home Office is putting in place that will mean this time it is different, and are you confident that that is the case?

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I will come to funding in a moment, if I may. I was particularly interested in the issue of compliance. You pointed out that the previous pilot had been counterproductive. What indications have you been given in your discussions with the Home Office that you think, in terms of the policy objective, that it will be different this time?

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

You are describing your aspirations for how it might be more effective, but I am thinking of where you have got to in your discussions with the Home Office. You have said that there is a constructive engagement. As we stand at the moment, in terms of what has been agreed, would it be unreasonable to say—I do not want to put words in your mouth—that there is nothing that gives you confidence that this would be any different from the pilot in 2005?

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

On the cost, it is about that assurance. Representing a large northern city, I am conscious that local government has taken a disproportionate hit, particularly in areas where we have a concentration of asylum seekers. I am keen to know whether you have assurances from the Home Office that all the additional costs will be met. Yes or no will do.

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

In my constituency and across my county of Kent this summer, we have seen very high numbers of unaccompanied minors. I understand that it has been an issue not just for Kent but for some of the surrounding local authorities. How do you feel that the Home Office has engaged with you with regard to dealing with that particular problem over the summer, and how do you see things moving forward?

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

Do you think that the Home Office has been good at engaging over this period and is committed to delivering this?

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

Do you feel, at the moment, particularly in the south-east—and perhaps if you have knowledge of the whole of the country—that the pressure we are currently seeing with unaccompanied minors is greater than the perceived pressure that may come due to some of the measures in the Bill?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Is the natural corollary of quite a lot of the discussion about the pressure on local government finance to see some change in the Children Act?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

We heard in earlier evidence that, when the final refusal comes, virtually everyone, it has been suggested, suddenly goes underground, beneath the radar. Clearly, that is not the case because a lot of people turn up at the doors of town halls across the country. What percentage of those who are refused do you reckon the Government deal with?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I am so sorry to interrupt a witness but that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I apologise to the hon. Members who were not able to get in. I thank the excellent witnesses. We could have gone on for longer but we were beaten by the clock.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

We will now hear evidence from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the British Red Cross. I am afraid that for this session we only have until 3.15 pm. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I have three questions. What types of non-asylum cases would be affected by the repeal of section 4(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and can you quantify the number of cases potentially affected?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

No conferring.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

That would be very helpful.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

What could the consequences be?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Yes.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

So there would be no other avenues for them?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

What obstacles to leaving the UK do refused asylum seekers and other irregular migrants face? Which of those should justify eligibility for the proposed section 95A support?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

The Bill allows extension of support where there is a genuine obstacle, so how do you think genuine obstacles should be defined in the Bill?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

That would be helpful.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

So, for clarity, you think that that needs defining either in guidance or in the Bill?

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

I want to ask you the question that I missed the opportunity to ask this morning. We have a lot of problems with our immigration service—it sounded terrible at some stages this morning—and I wondered whether you had any relative knowledge of immigration procedures and enforcement in other countries. How do we compare with some of our European partners?

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

Poor decision making, slow decision making, labyrinthine—does anyone know of an exemplar European nation that does things well?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Earlier today, we heard that cases are getting more complex—the rules are more complex. Does that really just affect the people who are caught up in the system having more complex issues? You have described people unable to get paperwork, because they are caught up in the politics between countries.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

We heard earlier on from the director of Migrants’ Rights Network—I hope I quote him correctly. We talked about complexity and potential abuses in the system. He said that there are flaws with the system and people want to exploit that. Is it your experience that people are trying to exploit this lack of knowledge between countries and the complexity of laws and nations? Or is it really, as you say, that there is a significant change in the way in which people are living or trying to group together and that countries are trying to catch up with that?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

In terms of the Home Office, we have heard two different things. One is that it is catching up and doing quite a good job where it is able to make the right decisions with the right paperwork, and that things are speeding up. The other was a criticism this morning about templating. There was, perhaps, a perception that situations in certain countries were being stamped on other individuals from that country to make decisions easier. What do you think is the reality of the situation?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

But is that because more evidence comes to light, or is it because you are saying that there is bad decision making?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

In that case, if this is a complex situation and is getting more complex, and people may or may not end up destitute, are you as an organisation making it clear to people that once they get into the process, they could end up on the wrong side of it? That is, if they can go home—if there are reasons why they should not be here—should there be some onus on all the groups supporting that situation to say, “This is not as easy as you think, and it may end up causing more harm to you and your family than good?” Can you explain that at that point?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

But we heard from some organisations yesterday that sometimes the first conversation about the fact that it can go wrong happens after it has gone wrong. That is why I am asking the question about such a good organisation as yours—to ensure that the whole round is explained to people.

Byron Davies (Conservative, Gower)

I have sat here for two days listening to people say that so many things are wrong with the system as it is at the moment, some of them picking faults with the Bill. I understand that UNHCR, for example, thinks that discontinuing support is unlikely to encourage people to go home. I do not know whether the panel shares that view. If you can justify that, I would like to hear your comments. Secondly, what therefore is the panacea for this?

Byron Davies (Conservative, Gower)

What is the answer to this? What is the solution?

Byron Davies (Conservative, Gower)

Where was this?

Byron Davies (Conservative, Gower)

Or to disappear.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

May I just say that we are going to run out of time and Members are not going to be able to ask their questions? But carry on.

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

On that point, if support were withdrawn only if people refused to engage and they were therefore encouraged to continue to engage, would you support that? Would you support a policy in which people are ensured continued financial support provided they are engaging?

Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North East)

We will be looking at amendments in the next couple of weeks, and you have all of us sitting in front of you now. If you could be granted one wish for an amendment, what is the primary thing you would say we should amend in the Bill? You never know, it might happen.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

It is one wish.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I will try to do this in one question. I want to draw together some of the examples you have given to make sure that I have understood the evidence. This is about the appeals for support. Let us say you have a case where there is a genuine obstacle to removal—for example, an Eritrean person who, for one reason or another, cannot get the right document to put before the Home Office. They are considered not to be destitute when they are, so the decision is made that they are not going to be given support. They then come to see you and you, the charity, provide them with a letter, so they have something that is almost certain to win on appeal, and they will at least get their support. If this Bill goes through, they are exactly the kind of person who will be stuck with a bad decision and no support, notwithstanding the fact that they are destitute and have a genuine obstacle to removal. It is simply tough on them.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

But it is just tough on them. We made the wrong decision, and though they have a piece of paper that means they would win on appeal, it is just tough. That is the effect of the Bill.

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

You mentioned that you think the removal of support will drive people underground. Can you explain to me what you regard to be underground and how that works?

Kelly Tolhurst (Conservative, Rochester and Strood)

So having that description and taking into consideration the other parts of the Bill that focus on illegal working, do you think that that measure might aid individuals being able to continue to engage, rather than being driven underground because of the threat from the other parts of the Bill?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I am so sorry; we have run out of time for the Committee to ask questions. Can I suggest to the two organisations that if they want to put anything in writing to the Committee—anything you do not think we have got round to discussing—feel free to do so. Thank you for coming.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Amnesty International, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Liberty—I hope. Welcome, everyone. I will ask you to introduce yourselves formally for the record, and I warn you that the Minister is allowed to ask questions at this session, which he enjoys enormously. Thank you, witnesses. Please introduce yourselves formally.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Thank you. Mr Starmer will start.

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Thank you, panel, for coming to give evidence to us this afternoon. The Bill proposes to make changes to the support that is provided to individuals who have got to the end of the process for their asylum claims. It extends the changes to the appeals process in terms of removal first and appeal afterwards. It introduces an offence of illegal working that applies to employees and expands the enforcement powers of immigration officers. Can the panel tell us what they think the human rights and equalities implications of those major changes are?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Is that just a timing question, or does it go beyond that?

Keir Starmer (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Other panel members, what are the human rights and equality implications of these measures in particular?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I will ask Mr Hoare to come in in a minute. I should have said at the beginning to the witnesses that we will finish at 4 pm, not 4.30 pm as you may have been told originally. We want to get through as many questions as possible.

The other thing is, when it gets to 4 pm, there will be bells ringing. It is not the fire alarm; we will have to go and vote. You will see us all rush off at that time, so please do not be offended by that.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Ms Robinson, has Liberty ever welcomed an immigration Bill?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

I think we will take that as a no.

Let me ask you another question; it may come out crudely, but it is not intended to be crudely phrased. A phrase you used in your answer to Sir Keir struck me: “members of our society”. That was a phrase that you used once or twice in your opening remarks. We are talking here about those who have failed a process—a fair process. That could be debated, but let us say for argument’s sake that it is a fair process. Therefore, by definition, one can presume that the people for whom permission has been refused have not welcomed that decision, but in point of fact and without being rude about it they are not “members of our society”; they are members of the societies of other countries. Where does our duty end in those circumstances?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

And that assertion can be evidentially substantiated?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

The assertion that you have just given us.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Chair, may I just ask a general question? If all members of the panel wish to answer it, that is entirely up to them. I am certainly taking Ms McLaughlin’s line, which I thought slightly pinched my earlier line of questioning this morning. In the ideal world and you have a blank sheet of paper in front of you, would you prefer to see an amnesty for those who are here today illegally and effectively start from scratch, or would you just prefer to see an open borders process and let the market decide how full the country can and cannot be?

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Okay. Maybe somebody else on the panel has an answer.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Shall we just go down the panel? There are five people; four organisations. Perhaps one from each organisation.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Your personal view.

Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)

Can I come back very briefly? I was interested in what you were saying because you made that point in an earlier submission. You are right to be worried about the social cohesion perspective. I suppose I look at it from the other end of the telescope. Do you agree that if everybody in society, irrespective of colour or creed—I put that in inverted commas—had safe knowledge that their neighbours and the people who lived in their communities were all bona fide, were all legitimate, were all citizens, or had right to remain in this country, it would ease the growing tension in many communities? That, in fact, of itself eases what in many communities is a growing tension—a tension between the settled, legal immigrant community and the illegal immigrant community. In my judgment, that is causing quite a lot of tensions in towns and cities across the country.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Ms Grant, have you or your organisation had time to assess the west midlands pilot on landlords? Are you able to come up with some recommendations of how the pilot could be strengthened or any weaknesses in the Bill?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Rebecca Harris wants to come in on this point.

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

It is not particularly on this point. Within the provision of the Bill, do you think that there is sufficient resource and support for landlords to be able to make the assessment?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

My final question is about immigration officers. Their remit is being extended, so that they will become more police-like in their areas and in their reach. Do you think that there is enough oversight and independent scrutiny of immigration officers in the Bill or existing legislation to ensure that they act responsibly?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Do the rest of the panel members share those concerns?

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

You might want to reassure our witnesses that we had a housing officer as witness who thought that giving housing officers the responsibility to ask anyone to verify who they were might reduce problems with prejudice and so on. My question to all of you, with your expert knowledge of this area, is what measures you think we should be introducing to encourage people with no right to remain in this country to leave, or ensure that they do so when they refuse. What would be your solutions to that problem, if this is not the answer?

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

Do you think your alternative would help to encourage people who have no right to be here to leave the country?

Rebecca Harris (Conservative, Castle Point)

But you have not given us any measures that you think would be more successful in getting people who have no right to be in this country to leave. I am looking for your solutions to the problem. You are telling me what you do not like about the legislation, but I would like your solution; what would better help people who have no right to be in this country to leave.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Can I butt in? I am really sorry, but we have got about five Members who want to get in, with less time than we expected. If you have not got a remit to talk about it, perhaps we should move on. I guess that no one else on the panel is going to answer that question, are they? No.

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

I want to challenge Ms Grant, but first I will declare an interest, as I did on Tuesday. You have said that it is not right that landlords have to deal with the complexities of people’s immigration status. In fact, we had Mr Smith on Tuesday from the Residential Landlords Association, who said that the sector was made up of amateurs and accidental landlords. Let me just ask you what is so complex about taking an ID, which the majority take anyway. Do you not think it might enhance the situation for landlords along the way?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

May I just point out to you that that is no different from anyone else in this country who wants to rent any property? I had the same situation myself only three weeks ago. First, living in Yorkshire, I had to be in London on a particular day, otherwise the property went. Secondly, I had to have all the relevant checks in place. If I did not, the property was given to somebody else. How is that discriminating against somebody, when that situation is already in place?

Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Trust me, as a landlord, you have to be cautious anyway.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

I just wanted to pick up the line about entitlement, which is running through the conversation this afternoon—people feeling that they will get to a point at which they are entitled to be here. This question is for Ms Grant: does your organisation explain to people that there may be a point at which they feel they are entitled to be here, but they will not be? Do you go through the process of what could happen to them? We heard from the Red Cross earlier that it does that, but some organisations do not and it is adding complexity to complex cases.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

So fairness on all sides. That is very helpful. This question is for Ms Robinson: we have heard this week from some sectors, such as hospitality, that in some areas, exploitation of illegal migrants does happen. Do you think that the Bill unfairly shines a light on exploitation of workers? I am confused about why you do not see that there are some areas where it is easier to exploit people than others.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

You were saying that people do a “finger in the air” job and just turn up at restaurants, for example. However, we heard evidence on Tuesday that certain sectors, such as the building trade or hospitality, were more likely, in some cases—with bad employers—to find workers and exploit them. This Bill provides an opportunity to protect people, would you not agree?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Finally, we heard this morning from the director of the Migrants’ Rights Network who said that there were flaws in the system that could be exploited. Are there any provisions in the Bill that you believe are the right ones in terms of not allowing people to be exploited?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Do you think Amnesty gets that messaging right in terms of explaining to people that there is a fair system, but they may not feel at the end of the process that they get a fair outcome? Are you as a group telling people all the bad stories, the good stories and the realities? In essence, no system will ever get it completely right and you have to highlight when we do get it right. Are you spending your whole time explaining when we get it wrong?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

In terms of the view that the welfare group has, Ms Grant, do you think the same? Are you are able to tell the good and bad stories so that if people do come here they have a fair view that the system can be perceived to be kind to some people with a perceived entitlement and less kind to others? That could be down to what we heard earlier—because of the complexity of the cases. If you cannot get your documentation, it may seem that the system is unkind to you, but you may be caught up in a political issue locally rather than this being an unfair system.

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Would you say the system is better than it was five years ago in terms of being timely?

Mims Davies (Conservative, Eastleigh)

Is that because the cases are more complex?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated to the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses for coming and answering questions.