Clause 1 - Variation of leave to enter or remain
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
12:45 pm
Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
It is so nice that the Minister can tell the difference.
Many people outside the ambit of the Committee will be disappointed with the Minister's response. He is dealing with an extremely complex area, which is hard to get a grip of because, by his admission, e-borders and the points system are not in the Bill. We are told that we must go back to the five-year plan and that what is proposed are the building blocks, but we are only humble legislators. It is difficult to fine-tune the proposals and get a grip of what is happening when we are only seeing part of the picture. I appreciate his difficulty in producing the whole picture, but it is not unreasonable to expect him to have waited a little longer before tackling the matter so that we could have had a fuller picture.
I am grateful for the Minister's generous offer of briefings from his officials for members of the Committee—an offer that we will want to consider as we must get things right. We do not want students, or anyone who is on the receiving end of an unfair process, to be put off coming to study in this country. However, especially on the Lisbon goal, for example, the Minister ignored my point that the Bill is likely to hamper our ability to recruit international students, including science students and postgraduate researchers. That is why the Lisbon goal, which will require 700,000 students, is relevant. I hope that those who advised me that there may be difficulties are wrong, because it will affect the science base in this country.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It is ironic that the Minister said that at the end of the day there will remain a right of appeal against a direction to remove, as that is scant comfort for the applicant who is not only stigmatised but may have to wait months, if not years, before being able to exercise any right of appeal, depending on when or if the Government serve a removal notice.
The Minister will recall that 13 years ago the Conservative Government tried to remove certain appeal rights. I make no apology for quoting the words of the then shadow Home Secretary who said:
''When a right of appeal is removed, what is removed is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction.''—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 123, c.43.]
That is true not just of immigration officers, but of anybody. When I was doing some research, I came across quotes from 1992 and 1993 which are worth looking at. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said:
''In almost every other walk of life there is a right of appeal. Even a convicted murderer has a right of appeal. A social security claimant who believes that his claim has been wrongly assessed has such a right. For all systems of administration this right offers the possibility of redress.''—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 701.]
That is what the Minister is taking away by not accepting our amendments.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said:
''Immigration officers are bad enough as it stands, but if they know that people have no right of appeal they will be even more arbitrary, unpleasant and unfair.''—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 102.]
Have things changed so much since then? I hope that the Minister's assurances about further education and more resources are right. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) said:
''As other hon. Members have pointed out, the strength of any appeals system lies not only in the right of redress for the aggrieved or wronged but in the fact that it acts as a control on arbitrary decision-making by officials. Those who know that their decisions may be subject to appeal are likely to behave differently from those who know that their appeals are not subject to appeal, scrutiny, challenge or review.''—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c 95.]
Those are comments by Labour Members.
I make no apology for turning to the statement of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He said:
''The new Bill—
the Asylum and Immigration and Appeals Bill—
''replaces the measure which fell because of the general election. It contains one concession of significance that we welcome—full oral right of appeal for all asylum seekers—but in our judgment it remains profoundly flawed. Without any justification it removes the right of appeal under immigration law from two categories—visitors and certain categories of student. The Secretary of State's speech in justification will have done nothing to allay the deep offence that the Bill has caused in many parts of our communities, which see it, rightly, as arbitrary, insensitive and unfair.''—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 36.]
The Prime Minister's words hold true today. People will not understand why this right of appeal is being removed. I urge the Minister to think again and to consult as widely as possible, particularly those organisations that have briefed us on the clause. I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.