Clause 1 - Variation of leave to enter or remain
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
6:15 pm
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the concerns of the Commission for Racial Equality on the impact of the legislation, which is best encapsulated by clauses 1 and 9, on good race relations. I have provided members of the Committee with its briefing, and think it important that we should run through those concerns and ask the Minister to respond.
The Minister will be aware that the CRE has great experience in considering the impact of policy and legislation on good race relations. Indeed, we in the House look to it not for a binding view, but for advice. We should consider the impact of legislation, particularly in areas such as this, in which there is potential for exploitation by extremist groups. The CRE says:
''In a process where the credibility of the applicant and the sponsor is central to determinations, an oral hearing''—
that implies that the applicant would be present—
''provides the most effective and fairest means of presenting an appeal and its removal may in practice operate as a denial of access to justice for certain ethnic minority groups. It is also likely to twist the appeals system as appeals may be brought under Human Rights legislation which may not be as appropriate.''
I have drawn that to Ministers' attention before.
The CRE briefing continues:
''There is no evidence that consideration has been given to the impact which removal of appeal rights will have on certain ethnic minority communities living in the UK.''
Not all the people who will have diminished appeal rights, as the CRE sees it, under the clause are from ethnic minorities, but a large number will be. The CRE says that the race equality impact assessment conducted by the Home Office on the clauses on appeal rights, which I have seen, is ''inadequate and unsatisfactory''. It says that the
''long term consequences will be that certain groups in the UK, definable by their ethnic or national origins, will be denied justice and equal treatment in one part of our legal system. The CRE regards this as a wholly undesirable precedent for a system of justice in a multi-ethnic society.''
I agree. Ministers and the Labour party, with its tradition of promoting race relations, should take that seriously. No one is accusing Ministers of racism, but, in pursuing a policy objective, they should pay attention to that point.
The CRE briefing goes on:
''The changes in the appeal rules do not directly refer to settlement. However, they dovetail with regulations that are being put in place that will exacerbate the impact on Good Race Relations. Two changes to settlement are particularly pertinent. Regulations have been placed that award only temporary leave to refugees, who despite a successful claim, may still be returned to their country for a period of up to five years after a successful decision. This is clearly contrary to an agenda of integration and could hamper the promotion of Good Race Relations. Second, the proposal to refuse any route to settlement for low skill workers will have similar consequences.''
I understand that we cannot go into some of those issues now, but we must pay careful attention, in the context of that policy, to the impact of the clause. It is particularly unfortunate that along with the effects of clause 1, the procedure under which refugees were given indefinite leave to remain, which was introduced by a Labour Government in 1998 and welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, is being lost. Immigrants, refugees and people affected by clause 1 feel pressure because of the way in which the media and others treat this matter, and need all the support that they can get. The impact of annual employment checks or the fact that such people are unable to continue lawfully working when they have lost an initial decision on extension or variation—we hope that what the Minister has said will mean that that is ameliorated—is extremely unfortunate. I hope that the Minister will take that to heart.
However, despite what the Minister said about his intention to ameliorate some matters raised earlier—perhaps in the form of amendments—I am minded to seek to divide the Committee on clause stand part, and I hope that other Committee members will support me. I am minded to do so not least because of what the CRE sees as the impact that the clause will have on good race relations, but also because not only is this approach fundamentally wrong but the Government can achieve their understandable aim of streamlining appeals through existing legislation. I hope that the Minister will respond to the CRE's concerns, and I will seek to press the clause to a Division.