Clause 1 - Variation of leave to enter or remain

Part of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:15 pm on 18 October 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office 12:15, 18 October 2005

I have said once, and I shall say again, that I do not believe the assertion clearly implied by Opposition Members that if we remove the right of appeal, the refusal rates will suddenly shoot up. I understand why they are using that as a debating device, but that does not mean that refusal rates will suddenly go through the roof. That is not the case at all.

Furthermore, given the clarity, transparency and all the other elements that we shall achieve though the five-year plan and the points system, I do not agree with where Opposition Members started from in the first place. I certainly do not agree with the assertion—implicit or otherwise—that the removal of the right of appeal will suddenly mean more direct human rights appeals.

In fact, I would go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow talked quite rightly about the level of delay with many processes in the recent past and about people being in the system for so long. In part, certainly in this case, they have been in the system so long because of the level and number of appeals that are permitted, including human rights appeals and judicial reviews. I do not say that people should not go down that route; I simply say that we are seeking to streamline. That streamlining must be seen in the context of all that we are doing in other pieces of legislation. That is why I say strongly that much of what is in the Bill, and not only in this group of clauses, serves as building blocks to what we are trying to do elsewhere.

Hon. Members will not understand, in real terms, what we are doing in areas such as e-borders unless they know everything else that is going on. All the legislative elements that we require for e-borders are not included in the Bill, nor are those dealing with employers and illegal employment Some elements are included, but they are building blocks and need to be seen in that context.

This will sound now like an unconscious stream, Sir Nicholas, but I am attempting to cover the serious points that hon. Members have raised. We are fully aware of the treaty rights of Bulgarians and Romanians under accession rights and of the Turkish nation under association rights. Those are enshrined in the assorted treaties, and nothing contained in this or any other Bill will challenge those rights.

I challenge what people say about the starting point for this legislation or anything else we are trying to do concerning immigration and asylum being to cut out abuse. It is not. I cheerfully say that in many cases the Bill is not about abuse—it is about streamlining the system. I was told when I took this job that administration would get me in the end—not policy, politics or organisation but bog-standard administration. That is what we are trying to streamline.

I do not start from the premise here or elsewhere that immigration in all its glory is somehow hugely problematic, and we have always got to solve problems. I do not accept that, and I have said that since I assumed this role. The clauses are about   streamlining and getting to a stage at which there is but one appeal process in this narrow area. I fully understand why hon. Members are talking about appeals in the absolute round when they dwell on their points. However, the legislation is not about appeals in the round—it is in these two narrow areas. It is not that the absence of abuse equals ''do not bother reorganising and streamlining''. If there are improvements to be made, we should make those improvements. A quite obscure Member of the House, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—I think that is where he lives—said on Second Reading:

''Conservative Members are minded to accept the Home Secretary's arguments on appeals''.—[Official Report, 5 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 196.]

That is very kind of him. If he remains shadow Home Secretary, which I am fully confident he will, he can repeat that point later. I understand why people are doing what they are doing, but let us put this in context. I cheerfully admit it is not simply about abuse. Of course, I know what Lisbon is. Nothing in the Bill challenges the Lisbon agenda and the Prime Minister's initiative in terms of the importance of overseas students.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is entirely right. This must change and is part of what we are seeking to improve. There is a long time between refusal of leave and removal decisions being made, but at least on some levels it is a result of the assorted layers. One of the primary aims of clauses 1 and 3 is to facilitate removal decisions. When the application for further leave is refused, the problem that my hon. Friend describes arises in large part because a decision to remove cannot be made until after the appeal against the refusal of variation of leave.

I am fed up with people saying, as someone did during the election, ''What bit of 'send them back' don't you understand Mr. Blair?'' Anyone who understands asylum and immigration and the complexities, either in this part of the appeal process or elsewhere, will realise how crass and ignorant such questions are. In asylum cases in many instances one is trying to establish who the individual is, where they come from, what documentation they have and how they can be returned. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend is going anywhere near this, but there are complexities when it comes to removals and it is not as simple as signing a removal order and as if by magic someone disappears.

This is partly about decreasing that gap. Whatever I do in this job, on appeals and everything else, it is clearly wrong for people, whatever their circumstances, whatever the validity of their application whether on the asylum or immigration side, to dwell within the system for four, five, six or more years, getting on with their lives while the bureaucracy tries to unpick matters.