Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I added my name to Amendment No. 10 and it was only after I saw the Marshalled List that I appreciated that I should have added my name to Amendments Nos. 9 and 34, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has pointed out, are integral to Amendment No. 10. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, a very technical explanation is needed in support of this large group of amendments and I am grateful to the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association for, as ever, its exemplary briefing to those of us who are not lawyers who have to grapple with matters such as this. Like other noble Lords I wanted to find another solution to the problems posed by Clause 1 and the subsequent new Clause 13. We all agree that there should be a one-stop appeal system, but the Government’s chosen solution is unattractive. The Government are making, not only in Clause 1, but in Clause 4, sweeping changes to an appeal structure before we are sure how a new points systems will operate. It is a question of putting the cart before the horse and our work throughout this Grand Committee will be to try to ensure that that cart stays upright and safe for the thousands of people who seek to come to these shores both to work and to study. At Second Reading, speakers around the House supported the Government in their attempts to have one-stop appeal. We all spoke in favour of people coming to this country. We know that they enrich both our social, cultural and economic life. There are very few, such as the Columbians who were sentenced last week for drug running, who give immigrants a bad name. The vast majority enrich this country. We are trying here to ensure that that migration to this country continues in a proper, fair and humane manner. I accept that the Government showed goodwill in another place when they introduced what is now Clause 13, by trying to ensure that overstayers were treated better than would otherwise have been the case under Clause 1. But the old saying is that if you are trying to get to Newcastle you would not start from here. The problem is that Clause 1 starts from the wrong place. Clause 13 is a patch-up job which leaves overstayers in an unpleasant and wrong position by rewarding them, in a sense, for being difficult and hanging on, whereas, if they are honourable and straightforward, they may be in the most difficult position of having to leave and to institute their appeal proceedings from overseas. If someone’s passport is endorsed for overstaying, they face a bleak future, given all the problems they will face. It will not only affect their future travel if they go elsewhere and try to return here, it also means that they are in limbo here by being unable to work, receive benefits or healthcare pending their removal. I made it clear at Second Reading, and will repeat, that the debates in another place have persuaded us that there is a good reason to retain an in-country right of appeal, but it is a matter of how we achieve that. While we agree with the Government that it is important that decisions are made in the right way first, they must be made expeditiously and it should be possible to remove quickly those people who should be removed. Our preferred solution is that adopted by the first group of amendments, which seeks to find another way of ensuring a one-stop appeal system. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned that at Second Reading the Minister said that she was in listening mode and wished to consider alternative proposals that could be acceptable. I hope that this group of amendments may provide a constructive way of beginning those negotiations, because nothing happened between the Bill leaving another place and coming here. I see this Grand Committee as representing a helpful period where we now have time to reflect. But we know that if we do not manage to have negotiations instituted quickly between ourselves, outside organisations such as ILPA, and the Government, time could fast run out. We appreciate that if the Government are able to make any movement, all-departmental agreement must be reached through the Cabinet. So I am very much aware that the Minister is not in a position to yes or no today; at least, I hope that she is not in a position to say no, and I hope that she may later be in a position to say yes. I hope that the Government may be persuaded to institute detailed discussions on these matters. In passing, I refer to two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to children of asylum seekers. I have amendments in the next group, or my noble friend Lady Morris has, which adopt specifically the issue of children, and I shall leave my remarks on children until that stage. In addition, I have tabled amendments in the second group that address specifically the issue of students. I agreed with the Bill team that the grouping should be as it is on the Order Paper, because I agreed that it might be helpful to set the scene in the first group to consider what kind of appeal system there should be. Is it right, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that certain procedures should be left to secondary legislation? That matter of principle is raised in the first group, but I shall hold my fire until we get to the matter of practical application under the second group, because that becomes pertinent only if the Minister says to us at the end of this sitting that the Government will not agree to any changes. If she says, on the other hand, ““We do not agree to making changes today, but we shall think about it””, I shall tempt her with further examples as to whether students and children should be exempted, under the general umbrella of saying that there is something not right in the current drafting of Clauses 1 and 13.