Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 60, page 47, line 35, at end add—

‘(12) If any part of this Act has not come into force within two years of it receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament the reasons.’.

I do not often table amendments to a commencement clause, but I thought that it was worth doing so in this instance. I have been looking back at the record of the implementation of the multitude of immigration Bills that have been introduced. By my analysis there have been eight. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), always makes it nine; we have never quite reconciled the numbers. I think that this is the third such Bill that I have had to deal with. I am sorry to weary the House with some detail, but it is worth doing.

If one goes back to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, sections 98 to 117, 125, 130 to 137 and 146 have not yet been commenced. One might argue that that is fair enough as that Act was only passed last year. However, going back to the UK Borders Act 2007, sections 19, 24, 32 to 38 in part and 57 have not yet been implemented. Whole shoals of the Identity Cards Act 2006, which had a significant effect on immigration, have not yet been commenced—thank God. With a following wind and a sensible new Home Secretary, they never will be.

Going back even further, section 16 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 has not yet been implemented. I have four lines on the sections of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that have not been introduced. I will not weary the House with details, but the second half of that Act just was not implemented at all; sections 44 to 47, 51, 53 and 124 have not yet been implemented. One can go back even further to Acts dating back to the last century and find parts that have not been implemented.

That tells us that the Government are very keen to rush in a new immigration Bill every session. However, at some stage after the House has scrutinised it but before anything happens in the real world, they decide not to implement large parts of it. So I suppose that I am seeking some assurance from the Minister that he is absolutely sure that everything that we are discussing and passing in this Bill will actually happen in the real world, because all the evidence of previous Home Office immigration Bills is that that is not the case. I want to know exactly how much time of the Committee and the House is being wasted in discussing and passing legislation that is destined never to achieve anything.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

We have a very unusual situation whereby the Conservative spokesperson is urging the Government to implement their Bills. So I welcome his support on that.

If you will allow me, Mr. Gale, I want to reflect on the fact that, in our debate on clause 39 as was, on the transitional arrangements, if hon. Members were to get their way, the implementation date would be put back, would it not? In some cases, I was urged—not in this room, but elsewhere—to put the implementation back by several decades.

However, let me try to address the hon. Gentleman’s serious point. There was indeed a parliamentary question on this issue, which was put to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We commend the hon. Gentleman on his research and for making this point. As I said at the start of our consideration, I am in favour of post-legislative scrutiny;  I think that the House should do that and I believe that the public would respect us more if we did look at laws after they are passed.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that 18 of the substantive provisions of the Bill, if both Houses agree to it, will come into force by order. That includes those provisions in part 2, including earned citizenship, provisions on a common travel area, the judicial review clause and the children’s duty.

Let me reassure you, Mr. Gale, and the Committee that the Government have every intention of implementing everything in the Bill within the next two years. A total of 43 clauses, including provisions in part 1 on border functions, and clause 52 on restriction on studies, come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Part 1 is essential as it will allow for the formal transfer to UKBA of about 4,500 officers who are currently employed by HMRC, to enable the full integration of customs and immigration work at the border. All the other provisions in the Bill will begin implementation by the end of 2010.

The only exception where I cannot assure the Committee relates to clause 54, because we remain committed to consulting Scottish Ministers in advance of laying any orders and I will not prejudge those conversations by announcing the implementation date now. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point but do not think that you, Mr. Gale, would allow me to answer all the questions he asked, which are outside the scope of the amendment and the Bill. I assure him, however, that the Bill, which is small, modest and perfectly formed, will fit together like a jigsaw puzzle with the simplification Bill, which will come later.

I wish that the hon. Member for Ashford, who criticised us for bringing forward legislation to the House, would co-operate with us in getting more timetabling for immigration Bills so that we did not have to keep coming back. If we get that co-operation, he will not be able to use the amendment when we debate the simplification Bill. That apart, I hope I have convinced him that my timetable for implementation of the Bill, which is what we are discussing, is sure, on track and necessary.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I assure the Minister with great sincerity that one thing I do not criticise the Government for is being backward in bringing forward immigration legislation. I have been making the point for some years that there is too much legislation and not enough enforcement, and too much of the legislation is defective. I adduce in evidence the fact that the Government, after passing their own legislation, clearly decide that large chunks of it are defective, because otherwise they would put it into practice. I think I have made my point and so beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.