Clause 42 - Procedure
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
6:30 pm
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 129, in clause 42, page 23, line 22, leave out from ‘paid’ to end of line 24.
The general point that the amendment addresses is whether the requirement for making applications and changes to the procedure should be just administrative or whether those changes should be made in the immigration rules or confined to regulations. Clause 42 is extremely broad, particularly in its reference to
“whether or not under those rules or any other enactment.”
The amendment is probing, and seeks clarification of subsection (2), and what scrutiny will be given to procedures under it, as opposed to the rules under subsection (1). Subsection (2) is troubling. The Secretary of State makes laws on immigration applications and makes the immigration rules. New situations arise that require the development of practices and policies not yet embodied in the rules. In the past, some concessions have been slow to find their way into the rules; one example is the changes and the concession that was made on domestic violence. The concession or policy might be set out in a letter, described at a meeting or noted in policy instructions. Although the latter are available on the Home Office website, it is difficult for members of the public to negotiate it and to seek out that information, especially if they are not legally qualified.
It is therefore not easy in those circumstances for individuals to know what the law is, nor to conform their conduct to it. While it may be embodied in a concession that the Secretary of State requires certain information, it would not be reasonable to give him powers to create a mandatory procedure with serious penalties if it were not followed. If a concession requires to be formalised in that way, surely it can be incorporated into the immigration rules or regulations.
I am also keen to probe the power in both subsections that makes provision for the consequences of failure to comply. Could an inadvertent failure to comply with a technical requirement by a specified time, result in refusal of an application? The forms are complex, English is often not the first language of the people concerned and access to legal advice is not always what it could be. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those points on this probing amendment.