UK Borders Bill

The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my parliamentary neighbour, made a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, although it was thought provoking in a way that was different from a speech made a little earlier. However, beyond all other speeches, I want to draw attention to the speech by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I do not say this simply to annoy the Government, albeit that that is his purpose from time to time. I highlight the hon. Gentleman’s speech because he demonstrated to us the purpose of being a Member of Parliament. Although we are elected on a party political platform, it is not our purpose to come here and abdicate one’s responsibilities for holding the Government to account. It does not matter whether someone is a Labour Member of Parliament, a Conservative Member of Parliament or even a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, it is the job of us all, wherever we sit and from whichever party we gain our support, that we should constantly demand the Government to justify themselves. He did precisely that. Not for the first time, I salute him. Having drawn attention to his speech, perhaps uncomfortably for him and those around him, I hope that he will persuade the right hon. Member for Leicester, East to keep in his seat for a number of reasons, but in particular this evening, rather than allowing him to be provoked into voting for what is perhaps not an altogether satisfactory Bill. A number of themes have come through the debate, not all of which have had much direct connection with the Bill, but that does not necessarily matter because the issues discussed have been important. They include biometrics, the abuse of migrant workers in jobs and housing, people trafficking, the powers of immigration officers and the need for a unified national border police, what we are to do with foreign criminals and the extended issue of deportation generally, whether the Bill will work—and, perhaps equally as important, whether the Home Office will be able to make it work—and regulation. Those are the general themes highlighted by the debate. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber at this late hour. I was intrigued to see that the publicity-seeking Home Secretary wrote this article in The Guardian saying:"““If you renovate a house you start by taking the wallpaper off. Only then do you discover more problems…No one need tell me that there are problems in the Home Office. I know. That’s why…I said parts of the Home Office were ‘not fit for purpose’…I was sent to the Home office to do a job…But it isn’t mission impossible. Judge me not on the challenges but on my response to them.””" The response that we had today is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, the sixth Bill on immigration and asylum. I am not sure why the Bill is called the UK Borders Bill. It ought more properly to be called the immigration and passports Bill or the immigration and asylum Bill (No. 6), but perhaps that would give the game away—that we have had so much legislation from the Home Office, not just in immigration and asylum, but right across the ambit of its remit, but so little improvement. Member after Member has said this evening that what is wanted from the Government is effective administration, an efficient, politically motivated, strategic leadership of the Home Office and management of the issues with which it must deal. That has been said by Members on both sides of the House. No one pretends that those issues are easy, particularly this aspect of public policy, but I do not believe that anyone, having listened to the Minister—an engaging and bright Minister—