Dublin System: Asylum

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on reforms to the Dublin agreement and the effects on asylum.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

This morning the European Commission published its proposals for reform of the Dublin protocol and emergency relocation in response to the migration crisis in the Mediterranean. The proposals were first announced under the EU-Turkey deal, and agreement is critical to finding a solution for Europe’s asylum systems ahead of the summer. The Government will now scrutinise the proposals carefully.

As the House will be aware, the UK has an opt-in to any EU proposals on justice and home affairs issues. It is not bound to sign up to the proposals the Commission has published today; we will have three months to consider whether to do so. The proposals will be laid before Parliament, and an explanatory memorandum will be provided. Scrutiny Committees in both Houses will look at the issue in detail, and Parliament will be able to consider the proposals in the usual way.

The Government strongly support the principles behind the Dublin regulation. We believe that an asylum claim made in the EU should be dealt with by the member state most responsible for the applicant’s presence in the EU. This provides certainty for the applicant and protects other member states’ asylum systems from abuse. But our starting position is clear: we will not opt into any legislative proposal that replaces the existing Dublin principles with a redistribution mechanism, and we do not support relocation. Those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. We support the existing Dublin regulations and the principles underpinning them.

In this context, it is worth noting that the Commission has been very clear today that, should we not opt into the revised Dublin regulations, the existing regulations will continue to apply between the UK and other member states, and this is at least partly a direct result of the Government’s engagement with the Commission and other member states. As such, there is no risk that we would lose our existing powers to return people to other EU member states—powers that we have used nearly 12,000 times since 2005.

Where an individual is the responsibility of another EU member state under EU law, the Government seek to return them under the Dublin regulations—and we will continue to do so. We have been engaged in regular constructive conversations with our European counterparts and the European Commission, and will participate fully in the negotiations on this draft proposal at European level. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mrs Main]

I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am somewhat concerned that it will be three months before we know what this will look like in reality, given that we have a very important referendum coming up in that time.

The Minister said in February that the Dublin agreement

“should be upheld, not undermined.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 689.]

In theory, the Dublin asylum regulations ensure that EU countries can deport refugees to their first port of entry, as he just re-confirmed. The Secretary of State recently restated her view

“that amending the Dublin regulation is unnecessary and risks undermining a vital tool in managing asylum claims within the EU.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 21WS.]

However, the EU Commission is pressing ahead with reforms despite her views, and despite many European countries expressing their extreme disquiet. Under the existing rules, Britain ostensibly, as the Minister said, has the right to deport asylum seekers to their first port of entry. However, in practice that means—he gave a figure—that only 1% of asylum seekers from the UK each year have been relocated to the first port of entry, according to Eurostat. Does he accept that this very low figure of only 1% for relocations is accurate? If so, will he explain why the UK is performing so badly under the current regulations?

In practice, the Dublin agreement is very far from perfect, and the EU is desperate to find ways of evening out the strains from the large numbers of asylum seekers, as well as of not rocking the British boat before our referendum. Even the European Commission has acknowledged that the current Dublin system does not work. Germany has all but abandoned it, and Greece has apparently not abided by it since 2011. The Commission has stated:

“Even where Member States accept transfer requests, only about a quarter of such cases result in effective transfers, and, after completion of a transfer, there are frequent cases of secondary movements back to the transferring Member State”.

Does the Minister accept that even with relocations as low as 1%, we are often obliged to re-admit individuals under the secondary transfer process? Does he have figures for the House on how many are relocated back to the United Kingdom? Given the low numbers sent back to the first port of entry under this system, and the fact that many of them return, does he still believe that this is a good deal for Britain? Despite the haggling and horse-trading going on behind closed doors as we speak, has the Secretary of State secured a permanent and favourable opt-out from any form of quota sharing—an opt-out that cannot be overruled at any point in future by other member countries? It is important to know that at this moment.

These proposals are part of a package to try to manage the surge in migrants and refugees flooding into Europe. The Commission is in the process of proposing measures revising the terms of the Dublin regulation—namely, imposing a financial penalty of €250,000 for every refugee not taken by a country if another member state experiences a sudden influx. How will this new quota/penalty system proposal sit with the current Dublin III proposal that the Minister says he wishes to stay within? Has he secured a permanent and favourable opt-out from any form of penalty payment that might be negotiated in future for non-acceptance of quotas—one that could not be overruled at any point in future by other member countries?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, two points should be made. First, I say in all courtesy and gently to the hon. Lady that she modestly exceeded her time allocation, but I am sure that that was inadvertent and will not be repeated on subsequent occasions.

Secondly, equally courteously and gently, I say to the Minister, with reference to his final sentence commending his statement to the House, that he did not make a statement to the House. The Government could perfectly well have volunteered a statement to the House, but the reason the right hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber is that I required a Minister to attend the Chamber to answer the urgent question—capital U, capital Q—from the hon. Lady. It may seem a fine distinction to those attending our proceedings, but it is quite an important one. The right hon. Gentleman is here involuntarily and not voluntarily. I hope the position is now clear.

Migration into the EU

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered migration into the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. When I stood in this place last year and said that I thought that Germany was bonkers to give permanent residency to all the migrants arriving on the shores of Europe, that was met largely with derision. I stressed the importance of refraining from doing what made us collectively feel better at a time of appalling images of young children drowning on north African beaches and instead supporting pragmatic and moral solutions that represented the views of the British public, but also effectively served the needs of genuine refugees. I stressed that the message that Europe needed to give should be much clearer that those making the journey will not automatically get the right to stay in Europe if they arrive in Europe, and that if we did not break that link, we would have potentially hundreds of millions of people on the move. Within 3,000 km of the Mediterranean, which is four or five days’ drive away, nearly 1 billion people live. If I came from a poorer or less stable country, I might well make what would be a rational decision for my family and myself to move to a more peaceable area such as Europe to settle. However, we have not managed to break that link—that message has not gone out there in the world—and the drowning and the chaos continue. I believe that collectively we in Europe play a part in that, because we have not yet made it clear that if people arrive in Europe, they will not end up staying in Europe. The only people who have really profited from that chaos are the people smugglers.

Since that debate, we have seen the near-collapse of the Schengen agreement as countries opt for razor wire —some of them—over the open borders of the European Union. Sweden is the first casualty as a country that has failed both those whom it was trying to help and its population. With a proud history of taking in refugees from across the globe during the past century, its Government tried to do the right thing, in their view, by taking 200,000 refugees last year, but they have now had to admit that they do not have the financial means to assimilate such numbers and more importantly they have lost the backing of their population. Indeed, this is the great tragedy that seems to be playing out right across Europe. Governments such as those of Germany and Sweden have created a great backlash against even the most deserving people who require support, as a result of what in my view has been incredibly misguided altruism.

Following the debate last September, some newspapers mocked me for a “bizarre rant” in relation to a comment that I had made about a haircut. That only went to strengthen my point that any talk of what we actually do in response to the migrant crisis is almost politically toxic. Only recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was accused of using offensive language when making reference to a swarm of migrants in Calais. In my view, the Prime Minister—I am not known for toadying to him—actually has been ahead of the game on this and has realised that, if there is fallout from countries such as Syria, we get the most bang for our buck in terms of aid if we look after people in the region. The Prime Minister has also been very clear, which many of us have not been, that there is a very clear difference between a refugee and an economic migrant. It is fair to say that he understands the difference between a refugee and an economic migrant.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. We must talk about these issues. He will be aware that in The Times and YouGov poll in January 2016—it was very recent—six out of 10 people put immigration and asylum as one of the top three troubling factors facing the country today, so if we do not talk about that as politicians in this place, we are letting our country down.

[Mr Holloway]

Absolutely. I read an excellent piece in The Guardian, I think, by Nick Cohen, who said that if we really want to help people who find themselves in difficulties, we have to understand that there is a difference between economic migrants and asylum seekers. Indeed, the vast majority of people who come to live in this country are the former. A friend told me earlier that 90% are economic migrants and 8% are asylum seekers.

To go back to the haircut point, the fact remains that people who have successfully claimed asylum in the UK do indeed go back to places that they claimed asylum from. I would like to thank those members of the public who, after the September debate, sent me emails with many examples that they had known in their own lives. I sense that much of the media and much of the political class are rather out of sync with what the British public think about this issue.

Years ago, I lived covertly in the Sangatte Red Cross camp in Calais. I remember arguing with one of the producers when I was editing the piece, because my experience in the Sangatte camp was that most of the people—99%—were fit young men who had paid people smugglers to make that very long journey and were indeed economic migrants, not desperate refugees. I remember having an argument, when we were going to voice the documentary, about the use of the word “refugee” or “economic migrant”.

During the September debate, one hon. Member accused me of being out of step with what the British public feel about accepting large numbers of refugees, but that does not stack up. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement that the UK would resettle 20,000 Syrians, a YouGov poll found that 49% of those asked believed that Britain should be accepting fewer or no refugees, which was a 22 percentage point increase from the month before—my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) pointed that out. I was also derided for “blurring” the boundaries between what a refugee is and what a migrant is, but I think that that point is finally beginning to be taken on board, even by Mr Juncker in the European Commission. I argue that not recognising the difference between migrants and refugees has done more damage to the case of genuine refugees, in terms of public opinion, than any ghastly things that have happened in Paris or may have happened in Cologne. Of course, there is an appetite among Europeans to help people, but there is a limit, and that limit comes in earlier when we fail to recognise that distinction. That really helps no one.

Do not get me wrong. As I have said already, economic migrants make rational choices for themselves and their families, and all of us would do the same, but either we are a nation state or we are not and either we decide who comes into our country or we do not, and at the moment it strikes me that we are not doing that in Europe and we are not doing it in the UK, either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.

This debate should focus on immigration and not necessarily on refugee status, because we are talking about people who wish to make a home in our country and not necessarily those who are fleeing persecution. I will therefore confine my remarks more to immigration than to refugees. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) that I would not base my views simply on what turns up in my postbag. Many surveys carried out regularly by reputable companies have shown that migration and population control is an important concern of the British public.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not. The hon. and learned Lady had 10 minutes, and there are many people wishing to speak.

We should be talking about immigration, which includes some people with refugee status but also a large number of people who come to this country either because of our membership of the EU or because they are coming here as economic migrants. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) made a powerful and well informed set of comments, based on having been in the camps, not just on people writing to him in his postbag.

If this issue was not such a concern to the British public, I do not believe that even now our Prime Minister would be trying to thrash out some deal that allays the fears of the British public about our loss of control over immigration into this country as a result of our membership of the EU.

It is telling that Mr Manuel Barroso said last night in an interview that what we are trying to achieve is a form of control on immigration through benefits packages, and that his view is that that will make no difference whatsoever. I share that view, because I do not believe that people necessarily come here because they have been lured by benefits. I believe that many people come here because they wish to work. They wish to take advantage of the opportunities that this country offers and of a better economic future for themselves and their family, and there is better healthcare here, and indeed better package as a whole. Whether we can afford for a large number of people to come into this country—a number that the British public would like to see reduced—is a different debate, but I do not believe that the benefits package that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might achieve by 18 February, however well secured, will make a jot of difference to immigration. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration responds to this debate, I would like to hear whether he thinks such a package will make a jot of difference.

It is interesting that England—not the UK—is the second most crowded country in the European Union, if we exclude the island state of Malta, and the ninth most crowded country in the world when the city and island states are excluded. That contributes to the British public’s perception of whether, and how much, immigration into the UK is a good or bad thing.

I speak as someone with a highly desirable constituency that is surrounded by green-belt land, although it does have areas of multiple deprivation. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West that how many houses are built to accommodate newly formed households is a source of concern, and we should look it straight in the face. These are not separate issues, they are all interlinked.

Government household projections show that in England—not Scotland, obviously—we will need to build enough housing to accommodate the additional 273,000 households a year between 2012 and 2037, which is a total of five million homes. That is a vast number of houses and it means sacrifices of things such as the green belt, which many of us have to consider as constituency MPs. It also means that there are huge pressures on jobs in certain areas, and it is no good whingeing about jobs not being available to British workers. I seem to remember Her Majesty’s Opposition saying, “British jobs for British workers”, and the reason they say such things is that they know the British public are concerned about these things.

Currently, there are 2.1—

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Main]

I will give way briefly to the hon. Lady, because I do not wish to take too long.

[Pat Glass]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the great strengths of this country has been its ability to absorb and to integrate hundreds of thousands of people over the centuries? They have included who have come here to work, my family being one of them. Those people came here to work, paid their taxes, raised their children, fought for this country and died for this country.

[Mrs Main]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, but it should be up to this country to decide the numbers. I do not disagree at all with what she has said; she is absolutely right. However, the British public tell me that they wish to be in control of those numbers. They also say that to many opinion pollsters, and I believe it is why the Prime Minister is currently negotiating. If they wish to make those numbers even greater, that is the decision of the British public; it should not be a decision imposed by an unelected bureaucrat in Brussels.

In total, 41.5% of the 5 million workers here who were not born in the UK were born in the EU, and most were originally from outside the EU, so some people do cross the EU and come through that route. There are currently 2.1 million EU-born workers in Britain. That accounts for a large number of people who are working and paying their taxes in this country.

British workers say that they are worried about their jobs. It is estimated that only 982,000 of the jobs that have been created recently have been for British workers. We are creating jobs and making opportunities, and that is why immigration is a big pull to our country—we are not the basket case that some EU economies are. They have not got the jobs to offer. I do not blame people for looking for jobs, but the British public expect us to discuss this issue robustly.

What number of people can we accommodate in housing? Where are we going to plan the additional housing that is needed to support and house those workers? House prices are rising because of supply and demand. In areas such as mine, which are near enough to London to commute to it, it is not a surprise that house prices are exorbitantly high, with an average house price of nearly £500,000. It is because of the pressures on getting on the housing ladder.

We are really being unfair to the British public if we do not look at the two sides of the same coin. Overall we are a prosperous country—although some areas of the country are struggling, there are no two ways about it—that offers opportunities to people in less fortunate situations. However, if those people are attracted to our country to take up the jobs that are being created as a result of our prosperity and the Government’s long-term economic plan, we have to accept that they will need housing, services and all that comes with it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham is absolutely right to have secured this debate, but we are tinkering around the edges of the issue if we are looking at red cards and a benefits-based policy. I do not suspect at all that migrants are drawn to this country because they wish to claim a few pounds in benefits. I believe that they want to come for the opportunities that I have described, and it is up to us—as it is to countries such as Australia—to decide at what pace that immigration takes place, how we can accommodate it and the numbers involved in that immigration. We can do that only when we regain control of our borders, which of course we can do only when we leave the European Union and all the constraints that it brings with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

It is a rare privilege to see you in Westminster Hall, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and previously that of Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) on securing this wide-ranging debate, which has touched on a number of issues relating to migration into the EU. I thank other hon. Members for their contributions.

It is important to set out the context of the debate, as others have. We are experiencing movements of people into the EU on a scale that has not been seen for generations. Some have sought to liken it to past events, but the situation we are dealing with is very different, given the number of nationalities involved, the nature of the situation and the mix of refugees with those who come to the EU seeking a better way of life, so looking for parallels with past events is challenging.

We can be clear that European member states face an unprecedented number of refugees and migrants, primarily from the middle east and Africa. More than 950,000 refugees and migrants reached the EU last year on the Mediterranean routes. About 800,000 arrived in Greece, the majority of whom were Syrian. Some 150,000 arrived in Italy after making the dangerous sea crossing from Libya. More than 3,500 people drowned, and many more have died or suffered at the hands of smugglers and traffickers en route.

Some Members called today for the Government to provide a humanitarian response. Some, such as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), even suggested that we were washing our hands of the problem. I would rather characterise it as the Government and the country rolling up our sleeves. We can be proud of the steps that this Government have taken, which reflect our moral approach to such issues. We have considered the problems at hand, dealt with them at source and brought countries together to solve the problems that lie behind the migration crisis into the EU.

It is notable that this debate comes hot on the heels of last week’s London conference, where nations came together to pledge £10 billion. Important though it is, however, this is not just about money; it is about direct assistance for hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, the conference’s outcomes included the commitments to create 1.1 million jobs for Syrian refugees and host country citizens in the region by 2018, and to ensure that none of the more than 1 million affected children will become part of a lost generation, with assurances about quality education and equal access for girls and boys. The UK has contributed an additional £1.2 billion, raising the money that we have committed to £2.3 billion. We are not “washing our hands”; we are responding appropriately to a huge crisis.

People have asked about our contribution within the EU. The UK has just increased its aid to migrant children in Europe and the Balkans to £46 million, divided among the most affected countries and including specific support of £2.7 million for UNICEF. We have also announced in recent weeks a new £10 million fund to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children in the EU.

Securing the EU’s external borders is a key part of addressing the crisis. Although the UK does not participate in Schengen border arrangements, a well managed external EU border is in our national interest. The Government fully support the European Commission’s hotspots proposal, which is aimed at addressing the continuing failure of some member states quickly to fingerprint and process arrivals and to provide protection to those who need it and return those who do not. It is unfortunate that implementation has been regrettably slow, and we will continue to press the Commission and all member states to act with urgency in establishing processing centres. We will also provide resource and expertise as and when required to ensure that people are processed when they arrive in the Greek islands or elsewhere, and that those in need of support and those not can be identified.

[Mrs Main]

I support my right hon. Friend in that aim. Frontex has shown that more than 1.8 million people have entered Europe illegally, yet only several hundred thousand have been sent back, so there is an obvious need for the additional support that our country has given.

[James Brokenshire]

We will provide assistance to the European Asylum Support Office and to Frontex to help with the establishment of processing centres right on the frontline, to help deal with the problem and co-ordinate things on the ground. That is a core priority. We also continue to support Frontex in its mission to rescue people from the sea. I pay tribute to the Border Force officers, Royal Marines and military medics currently on the VOS Grace, which has rescued several thousand people over recent months and will continue its operations, transferring to off the coast of Libya at the end of this month.

The link between organised crime and migration is clear and unprecedented, and has contributed directly to ongoing suffering and loss of life. For that reason, the UK is playing a leading role in tackling people smuggling and is increasing joint intelligence work to target the cruel gangs that exploit human beings for their own gain. The work of the organised immigration crime taskforce is progressing, bringing together 100 officers from the National Crime Agency, the Border Force, immigration enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue and disrupt the organised crime gangs operating across Europe and Africa. We are also harnessing intelligence through Europol, which is proving helpful and fruitful.

I have been challenged about our response in Europe, and I have already identified not only the support that we are providing in the Syrian region but the direct support that we are providing in Europe. Since the crisis began the Government have been clear about our view on relocation: it is the wrong response. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of the crisis, and it does nothing more than move the problem around Europe. The reality is that it has not even been good at doing that. Commitments have been made over recent months to relocate 160,000 people, but only 497 people have been relocated to date. Instead, we believe that it is most effective to provide support to countries facing particular pressures, and our focus will remain on helping the most vulnerable who remain in the region as part of a comprehensive strategy to end the crisis.

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Speaking as one of the forces of darkness referred to earlier, I abhor giving more power to any other body, but I accept my right hon. Friend’s argument about the international element; it is not just about the European element. In that case, I support the sharing of data, because it makes our streets safer. What I object to is that it is framed in this European way, but we are where we are, unfortunately.

[Damian Green]

I can only say to my hon. Friend that it would be absurd to let the best be the enemy of the good. It would be wonderful if 185 states all had the technical capacity and ability to exchange information in this way, but they do not. In fact, I think only 21 of the current member states of the European Union can actually do this. I know that this is not true of my hon. Friend, but I sense that other hon. Friends want to use that as a reason not to sign up to the proposal, but that is nonsense, because it would continue to leave our streets not as well protected as we would all wish them to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that that reassures those who have doubts on that score.

It has become fashionable in this House in recent days to quote dead communist dictators.

[Mrs Main]

Not on this side.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

You’re the first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I woke up this morning by reading his article in The Daily Telegraph on this subject, and here he is live this afternoon quoting Lenin, who I am sure is required reading for all his electors in Ashford.

I will not quote Lenin, but I will quote the Home Secretary who, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we revere on this side of the House. In 2014 she said that

“we have neither the time nor the money to implement Prüm by 1 December. I have said that it will be senseless for us to rejoin it now and risk being infracted. Despite considerable pressure from the Commission and other member states, that remains the case.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]

I was delighted to see her conversion, which was based—of course—on very strong evidence from the pilot that the Government put in place, and on a powerful case that we should join this important part of the EU. She has obviously thought about it carefully over the past 12 months, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Immigration Minister who rang me a week ago and told me what the Government planned to do.

All the arguments have been made. I could just say, “I agree” and sit down, but this would not be Parliament if I were to do that. It is rare for those on both Front Benches to speak so eloquently in support of a motion—perhaps that will be a feature of European debates to come.

[Mrs Main]

I disagreed with the shadow Home Secretary when he said that those who wanted to vote in favour of this motion would be expressing their delight at an ever closer union. I disagreed with him about that, and I felt—perhaps this is the useful idiot bit—that he was losing me at that point.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Lady is right. Voting for the motion does not mean an ever closer union—that issue is still under negotiation with the Prime Minister and the rest of the EU—but it does mean helping us to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime. I hope that she will vote with the Government on this occasion, as I am sure she has done on many other occasions since she came to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The British people showed huge compassion and there was an outpouring of offers of help for those who would be resettled from Syria. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees is looking at how we can ensure that those offers of help can be turned into practical assistance. That generosity of spirit will, I am sure, continue. There has been quite a lot of speculation in the press about the potential abuse of the route for refugees to come into Europe. It is important not to make judgments until the full facts are known.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Many local authorities, including my own, wish to resettle some of the Syrian refugees who may come into the country. If the refugees are dispersed around the country, some families will inevitably lose contact with loved ones and will wish to get in touch. Will a database be available to them as a means of communication?

[Mrs May]

Obviously, records of where the Syrian refugees are resettled will be maintained. If I understand my hon. Friend’s question, it was about Syrian refugees who may wish to access information about others who may have come to the country. As she will have noticed, the Minister is here and will have heard that, and he will consider the point she has made.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman may recognise, decisions about the composition of Committees are taken by the business managers in the House, but I can assure him that it is my intention, as I indicated to David Ford when I spoke to him yesterday, that my officials will continue to work with Northern Ireland officials. Ministers will be available to speak to Ministers in Northern Ireland about these matters to ensure that we take into account the considerations in relation to Northern Ireland as this Bill goes through its scrutiny and through this House.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments that local authorities will be banned from accessing these sort of data. Can she give a little more information about the extension of the life of a warrant for any period and about data-sharing among those who are able to access those warrants—or will each authority have to access their own separate warrant?

[Mrs May]

Any agency that wishes to intercept and use these intrusive powers would need to have a warrant to do so. The current position, which it is intended will be replicated in the Bill, is that a warrant applied for by the security and intelligence agencies is normally in place for six months, and a warrant applied for by law enforcement is normally in place for three months. There is a much shorter period of time when an emergency warrant is signed; it normally must be reconsidered within five days.

Migration

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will give the right hon. Lady the same reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias): we are clear that ODA funding will be available for the first year as the ruling on such funding is that it is available for 12 months. Thereafter, discussions will take place with the LGA, those involved in this issue, and with the Treasury, and the Chancellor has made clear that he will consider this matter carefully as part of the spending review.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will have heard in this morning’s media that the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr Viktor Orbán, has suggested that one reason to close the borders was to stop the dilution of Hungary’s Christian heritage. May I press her to say that when we help people from Syria and in the camps we will not discriminate against anyone as a result of their faith or otherwise?

[Mrs May]

I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. We look at the need of individual refugees. This is not about people of a particular faith; we do not discriminate against people because of their faith, and it is their need and vulnerability that will determine whether they come to the UK.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to come on to that point in detail, because it is an important one. The wider considerations, the detailed review of the legislation and the public consultation that we need will take longer than just five months, and it is important that this is not simply about repeated sticking-plaster legislation. We need to have a sustainable debate about how to get the right kinds of reforms to sustain the framework for the longer term and, crucially, about how we get public consent in this.

In the US, they have had a public debate. President Obama led a debate on liberty and security after the Snowden leaks, setting up an independent review group last summer. His response robustly defended much of the work that the US agencies do as vital to national security, but he also recognises the need for stronger safeguards. Our system has many more legal safeguards than the US system. For example, our warrant system is much narrower than theirs, and rightly so. We also have strong public support for the work of our intelligence services and the police, but that is no reason to avoid the debate and hope that it will go away. That is what I believe that the Government have done since last summer.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I want briefly to reinforce the right hon. Lady’s point. I have just come back from talking to St Albans Women’s Institute and the ladies made exactly that point. They asked what the difference would be, what it was all about and what it will mean to the public. There will be a problem in getting the message across through the media and the public will not understand why there has been this sudden rush to legislation

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right. Although we know that there are issues about the Court judgment and its implications over the summer, there will be considerable concern about the pace at which this Bill has been introduced and has been debated in Parliament. The short-term debate would be easier if there had been a wider longer-term debate about the question of a sensible framework in which the public could feel involved and have their say. If emergency issues came up, as they will from time to time—for any Government in any circumstances there will be court judgments that suddenly mean that an emergency response is needed—it would be so much easier to have the emergency debate against a backdrop in which the broader issues of security and liberty, and how we balance them in an internet age, are being properly debated and discussed, with public involvement.

Those of us who believe in the vital work the police and agencies need to be able to do should be the most ready to debate both the powers and the safeguards that are needed, because they must have public consent. We cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy. Of course, that debate must be handled with care so that we do not expose important intelligence capabilities that need to be kept secret to be effective, but we can have a debate about the legal framework, about the principles and about the powers and safeguards we need.

We know the vital work that we want the police and agencies to be able to do: building the intelligence that foils terrorist attacks; providing the fast response needed to find the last location of a missing child or murder victim; and stopping online fraud and cyber-attacks, which are escalating with every month. We also know that people will only continue to support those vital powers if they also know that there are proper safeguards: protection for innocent people’s privacy; public reassurance about what that protection really is; safeguards so that powers cannot be abused; safeguards, checks and balances on what the police and intelligence agencies can do; and a Government and Parliament that recognise that this is difficult and do not try just to sweep it all under the carpet and deny the public a say.

The lack of a wider debate is making it harder to have a short-term debate today. This is not the right way to have this debate. However, I also believe that we cannot reject this legislation now; it would be wrong to do so. We need to support it today, but we must also use it to get the wider debate that we need.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The Court judgment means that the regulations on data retention need to be replaced; otherwise, they will fall altogether. This is about the requirement for companies to hold their billing data and other communications data for 12 months. This does not refer to the content of the calls and messages; it just covers the communications data. If the police are investigating a crime or pursuing an emergency that involves risk to life or limb, they can get a warrant and ask the companies to hand over the data relating to the suspect. As the Home Secretary has said, these data are used to identify conspiracies, prove alibis, locate missing children and find out who is committing online crimes or sending online child abuse. The police need warrants to do this, and the data do not tell us what people are saying. They cannot tell us the content of an e-mail—that is private—but they can help us to solve crimes.

These data are particularly important in dealing with serious and organised crime. For example, they can show that drug dealers who claim not to know each other have in fact been calling each other every week. They can show who the armed robber called to help him get away from the scene of a crime, or where a missing child was when their phone was switched off. They can also help to trace who a terror suspect contacted before they went to Syria, for example, and to work out who might be grooming or radicalising more young people to go there.

These data are used in court in 95% of the serious and organised crime cases that reach prosecution. They are particularly important in relation to online child abuse, because they allow the police to get warrants, to contact companies to find out the name and address of the person who has sent vile images of child abuse and to rescue children who are being hurt. A recent Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre investigation resulted in the arrest of 200 suspects and identified 132 children who were at risk of abuse. The prosecutions and actions needed to rescue those children were made possible only through the use of communications data. A similar investigation in Germany, where communications data are not held, led to only a handful of cases being investigated.

The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police has described the importance of communications data to rape investigations. She has said:

“As to robberies and rapes, it is very usual for phones to be stolen. The stranger rapist, on many occasions, will take the phone from the victim and within 24 hours we find the rapist.”

The data also protect our children’s safety. In one case that the Joint Committee looked at, an online help service contacted the police, worried about a child who had posted on their website a threat to commit suicide. The police contacted the relevant companies, which helped to track down the service user’s name and address, then sent the local police to the door to find that the child had hanged himself but was still breathing. Fast action and communications data saved his life.

It is because we recognise how crucial this evidence is to so many investigations that we believe it would be too damaging to the fight against crime and terrorism for the police to lose this information this summer. The Government have rightly made changes to ensure that the new legislation can comply with the ECJ directive. They have narrowed the number of organisations that can access the data, for example, and introduced further safeguards to ensure that the process is necessary and proportionate.

The second part of the Bill is more complex, as it addresses the global nature of our telecommunications. Increasingly, the companies that help us to communicate with each other, with the family members we live with and with our neighbours and friends down the road, are based abroad. They should not be excluded from UK law just because of where their headquarters are based. International companies have been covered by and complied with RIPA for many years. Indeed, the legislation has always made it clear that companies should be covered if they provided services in the UK. We recognise, however, that other court judgments have made it more important to be explicit about legislation that has extraterritorial effect, rather than just leaving the arrangements implicit in the legislation. Again, it would jeopardise important intelligence if we were to ignore this factor.

Similarly, on telecommunications data, we have sought assurances from the Home Secretary that these measures are not an extension of powers and that they are only a clarification of the arrangements that already exist and of practices that already take place. It is important to recognise that this is not just about the legislation. The Home Secretary has now given the House assurances that the way in which she issues warrants will comply with that intention not to extend those powers, and that this is simply about maintaining the powers that are already in place.

This means that the safeguards are extremely important. The safeguards in the Bill and in the regulations are welcome. They ensure that the legislation is temporary, as well as restricting the purposes of the legislation so that it cannot be used only for purposes of economic well-being, and restricting the number of organisations that have access to data. We welcome the proposals for a privacy and civil liberties board, although we will need more debate about how that should work and how it should fit with our proposals to overhaul the commissioners and ensure that there is stronger oversight.

Immigration Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I am trying to explain why I have tabled my amendments to the clause, as amendments 2 to 5 relate directly to clause 14, as do my other amendments. I cannot explain them without referring to clause 14 to clarify, I am afraid.

A lot of people might be under a misapprehension, as regards the redrafting of what is in the public interest, that the measure will only apply to a very small group of foreign national prisoners. My point is that it will apply to anybody who attempts to make an article 8 appeal.

Let me make a point about new clause 15 that follows on directly from those points. It seeks to move things in the opposite direction from the proposals I have been trying to make. I find it slightly astonishing that any hon. Member would put their name to something that states that it is okay to cause serious harm to children, to cause manifest harm to children and to cause overwhelming harm to children, and that it is only not okay to cause manifest and overwhelming harm to children. Indeed, it has to be the child of the particular individual concerned and it is otherwise fine to cause manifest and overwhelming harm to any child. I am absolutely astonished that hon. Members think that that is okay.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

As a Member who put her name to the clause that the hon. Lady is disputing, may I say that if she looks at the intent behind it, she will see that Members such as me and others across the House wish to see the greater good of the population trump the good of the individual? She is losing sight of other people who may be harmed, who might be other people’s children.

[Sarah Teather]

I think I probably do not share her utilitarian view of what the greater good is. I probably have a slightly different view about the common good and do not think that that includes causing serious or manifest or overwhelming harm to children. That is why the UK is a signatory to the UNCRC, and why we believe that the best interests of children should always take prime consideration and that the law should be blind in that regard, irrespective of someone’s immigration status. It would be a sad day if the House legislated to say that it is okay to cause serious harm to children and indeed that it is okay to do that in order to pacify a Conservative party rebellion. That is not a good reason for legislating.

Identity Documents (Home Office)

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

Although I appreciate the courtesy that the Minister and his officials have shown, the cases I will discuss today raise serious concerns about the competence of senior Home Office officials, the processes put in place and ultimately, I am sorry to say, ministerial oversight of the immigration system. Importantly, the cases do not merely relate to the soon-to-be-defunct United Kingdom Border Agency, but to the new immigration and visas directorate under Home Office control. I have come across numerous cases where documents, such as passports, birth certificates and travel documents, have been misplaced or permanently lost, which has led to lengthy delays, erroneous decisions, expensive appeals, tribunals and compensation payouts and a great deal of personal anguish for constituents, with results ranging from being unable to attend funerals of family members and being wrongly stigmatised as illegal immigrants, to being denied work, social security and the normal family life to which they are entitled. There is disturbing evidence that documents are not being opened or included in a person’s case, and wrong decisions may be made as a result.

The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration report in November 2012 found that at one point more than 150 boxes of post, including correspondence from applicants, MPs and their legal representatives, lay unopened. The independent chief inspector told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that inspectors had come across the problem of lost files “in every inspection”. Worryingly, he said that 7% of the 400 files sampled were incorrectly filed—in other words, not in the right place. He said that he

“would like to see a much more rigorous approach taken to data management and file management generally.”

He emphasised that part of the cultural problem was that staff at UKBA did not see the human faces behind the mounting files. At a time when numerous concerns are being raised about the integrity of our immigration system, such reports hardly inspire confidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to outline any progress made since the report and say whether he is satisfied with that progress.

I would like to highlight some specific areas of concern with clear examples to which I hope the Minister can respond. I have encountered a number of cases in which the Home Office has wrongly advised constituents that their documents have been lost, only to locate them subsequently on the premises, sometimes years after denying their presence. Constituents have advised me that in addition to spending time and energy pursuing these matters, they have been unable to enrol in university, accept job offers, travel for work or even manage daily affairs as a result of the loss.

One phrase that crops up frequently in such cases is that the documents were “with another team”. That was the experience of one of my constituents who submitted his passport and biometric residence card to support his children’s application for naturalisation. The Home Office website advises EEA nationals that they can expect to receive their documents within 10 working days. In order to ensure a speedy return, my constituent had taken the liberty of enclosing a self-addressed envelope affixed with a paid special delivery stamp and a covering letter requesting that the documents be returned promptly, as he is frequently required to travel overseas for business.

The Royal Mail tracking system confirmed that the parcel was received, but when my constituent contacted the Home Office, he was informed by an official that the package did not contain his passport and biometric card. That information later turned out to be untrue. I am pleased to say that eventually the documents were located and returned to my constituent, but unfortunately he was extremely frustrated by the incompetence that he had experienced and missed a business trip as a result of the misplacing of his passport and documents.

In another case, the Home Office advised me initially that it had returned my constituent’s documents 12 months ago, only to apologise eventually and confirm that it had in fact retained his documents following a failed application. In other cases, documents have been located years later in files archived in error. I have been told by a reputable organisation of a case involving a family granted settlement earlier this year who received their biometric residence permits but whose passports were not returned. They phoned the Home Office and submitted the return of documents form by e-mail. The Home Office advised that it had returned the documents but could not find the recorded delivery reference number. The family contacted their MP to try to find out what had happened. After repeated phone calls from May 2013 onwards, in which the MP’s office was also advised that records stated that the passports had been returned, the Home Office eventually agreed to recall the family’s paper file, which had been sent to storage. Lo and behold, the passports were found and returned to the family, but not until August 2013.

Such cases cause frustration and serious short-term consequences, but in other cases, recovery has not been possible, with much more serious implications. Asylum seekers and refugees are required to send their documentation, often including passports from their home country, birth certificates and education qualifications, to the Home Office as part of their asylum claim. Such documents are almost impossible to replace, particularly given the circumstances in which individuals have fled their original country. There is concern that where such crucial evidence is lost, erroneous decisions in either direction may be made. The Welsh Refugee Council has advised me of several cases in which asylum seekers’ files have been lost prior to the refusal of their application. That then affects their ability to return home voluntarily or even by forced removal, as many countries refuse to accept individuals without documentation who claim to be nationals of that country, leaving them in limbo.

In another case that was brought to my attention, an asylum seeker was advised that his passport would be retained following the refusal of his application in 2001. The individual appealed against the refusal of asylum and, after a series of mishaps and appeals, was finally granted indefinite leave under the legacy programme in 2011. However, although he provided the Home Office with a copy of its own letter confirming that it had retained his passport, it continued to deny any record of holding it. After the intervention of his MP, the Home Office finally admitted that it had lost his passport in 2012. Given the serious circumstances in which such individuals flee their home countries, what confidence does the Minister have in the system, which is supposed to support and protect some of the most vulnerable people in the world?

I am sorry to say that the situation for many other non-asylum applicants is no better. In one particularly serious case with which the Minister is familiar, the former UK Border Agency returned the documents of my constituents Mr Conde and Ms Mane to their former address, rather than to their solicitors as they had requested. It was then impossible for them to retrieve their documents, as they had no access to the address. As a result, Mr Conde was unable to see his sister before she passed away or even to attend her funeral.

In another case, despite the fact that my constituent, Ms Chekera, informed the UKBA of a change of address and received a written acknowledgement, her details were not updated on the system and letters requesting that she enrol her biometric data were therefore delivered to the wrong address. The UKBA subsequently voided her application because she had supposedly not provided the information and returned her supporting documents to her old address. Because she was aware of the delays in processing applications, she did not contact the UKBA to ask for an update on her application until some months after the initial mistake. She was then devastated to discover that unbeknownst to her, she had been living and working in the UK illegally for several months, with potentially serious ramification for both her and her employer.

Employers have a statutory responsibility to ensure that people have the right to work in this country, but to open up the risk of stigmatising people who have the right to be here but are missing crucial documentation through no fault of their own is unfair and unjust. I hope that the Minister will concede that it risks diverting resources and attention from tackling those who are attempting to abuse the system.

In another case brought to my attention by a Member of this House, the Home Office lost an individual’s identity documents, meaning that he was unable to prove his identity for work purposes and thus remained unemployed despite wanting to work and faced a prolonged risk of destitution. The Welsh Refugee Council has raised with me cases in which the loss of documents has prevented settled individuals from demonstrating their right to social security. In one case, the Home Office lost the birth certificate of an applicant’s child, meaning that the applicant’s access to child benefit payments was seriously delayed, resulting in significant financial hardship.

Those are the immediate human consequences of incompetence. I hope that the Minister will issue an apology to all of them on the Government’s behalf. I would also like to challenge him on a number of other points. First, with regard to compensation for individuals when there has been a mistake, claims for redress should be considered in accordance with the “Managing Public Money” standards guidance issued by the Treasury, which emphasises that Departments should attempt to return the individual to the position that they would have been in had there been no maladministration on the Government’s part. More often than not, that is simply not the case. Many are left significantly out of pocket as a direct result of incompetence or mistakes.

Although the documents lost in many of the cases that I encountered are irreplaceable, where it is possible to source a replacement, applicants face the challenge of arranging and financing the replacement of their documents up front and then submitting claims and supporting evidence to request reimbursement. I find it extraordinary that according to a recent parliamentary answer, the Home Office does not readily hold data about the total compensation paid as a result of losing passports and other travel documents. I can assure the Minister that it is an expensive pursuit. As he is aware, the constituents that I mentioned earlier, Mr Conde and Ms Mane, have spent well over £1,500 to date on arranging replacement documents, but they have yet to be reimbursed a single penny. Other constituents are in a similar position. Does the Minister think that it is reasonable to expect people to resort to taking out loans or enduring financial hardship to finance the cost of replacing documents that the Home Office has lost, then to spend months trying to reclaim the money, while never being sure that they will regain the full amount?

The second issue is how documents are sent through Royal Mail. When documents have gone missing in transit and the Home Office is not responsible for the loss, it usually advises the applicant to pursue the matter with Royal Mail directly. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to retrieve the documents, so the applicant is tasked with claiming compensation from Royal Mail.

Royal Mail advises customers that its special delivery service is

“ideal for sending valuable items”

and includes compensation cover for loss and damage up to a maximum of £500. However, it has come to my attention that the Home Office often returns people’s documents to them by recorded delivery rather than special delivery. Recorded delivery includes compensation cover only up to a maximum of £50, meaning that when documents are lost due to an error by Royal Mail—not by the Home Office in these cases, I concede—the maximum amount of compensation that the applicant can receive is £50, regardless of the cost of replacing the documents. That is a drop in the ocean compared with the total expense incurred. Is the Minister aware of any plans, or does he have any plans, to review the policy and consider making the system safer and more secure for the constituents who use it?

A number of examples raise serious questions about whether the Home Office is acting in accordance with data protection legislation. In one particularly serious case, I have had to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner as well as the Minister. I was approached recently by an honest and careful constituent whose documents had been returned, but along with them was the original birth certificate of an unrelated child. My constituent is from Sierra Leone and has no children, whereas the birth certificate belonged to a child born in a different part of the UK to Nigerian parents. It eventually ended up in my office.

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has advised me of a similar case in which an Algerian national visited her legal representatives clutching correspondence that she had received from the former UKBA, despite the fact that she had requested all correspondence from the agency to be sent directly to her representatives. The correspondence had been sent to an address at which she was no longer resident. Most disturbingly, it contained a passport and other documentation belonging to a Liberian man whom she had never heard of rather than her child’s birth certificate, as the covering letter stated. Understandably, she was concerned that her own original documentation had been sent to some arbitrary and possibly untraceable location. Were it not for her honesty, the passport and documents of the Liberian could have ended up elsewhere.

Another colleague advised me that the Home Office recently wrote to a constituent of his, amalgamating the constituent’s case details with that of another unrelated individual. The Minister is aware that applicants are required to provide highly sensitive information in such applications, ranging from family and financial circumstances to allegations of torture, violence and persecution if, for example, the application is for asylum or humanitarian protection. This information is given on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence and held securely. It is therefore extraordinary that breaches such as this have occurred.

I wrote to the Minister about my constituents’ experiences and the wider problems of data protection on 18 September, but have yet to receive a response. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. I welcome his wider reflections on those serious cases. What discussions has he had with the Information Commissioner and senior officials in his Department?

I could go on—I have a litany of other cases—but I hope that, as I have highlighted a significant number of cases, as have other hon. Members and leading organisations working in the sector, the Minister will concede that what I have described appears to be a systemic issue, in some parts, rather than a few isolated incidents. In that regard, I was hardly reassured by some answers given to other hon. Members and me in a recent roundtable by a Home Office director, Sarah Rapson. I welcome outreach by the Minister and his officials—it is good to see that happening—but I do not feel that the system is improving. I have not seen signs of improvement in those cases. The number of people coming to me with cases suggests that there is a serious issue.

These cases clearly have serious and sometimes devastating implications for the individuals concerned and raise wider concerns about the integrity of the immigration decision process. It is my sincere hope that, as a result of my highlighting these cases, the visas and immigration directorate at the Home Office will undertake an urgent review into the problems I have discussed—not just the specifics, but systemic issues—and institute an effective system to ensure the safe receipt, storage and return of documents in a timely fashion; to address the massive backlog of cases; and to re-establish parliamentary and public confidence in a crucial aspect of our immigration system.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that the debate is now scheduled to finish at 5.7 pm.

Immigration Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Syms]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns because of her family history, but the reality is that people who are legitimately here have many protections. All the Government are saying is that, if someone wants to rent a property, they should have a passport. For simple, sensible reasons such as getting credit, most people need some kind of documentation, so the problem will not be insurmountable.

On the NHS, I welcome the health surcharge. Nothing annoys my constituents more than the feeling that resources that should be devoted to their care are being used by people who do not have a right to them. All hon. Members know that the NHS has not followed its policy of collecting money. The easiest thing to do is say that someone does not come from abroad and collect the money as if they were British citizens. The Government’s measures are sensible.

As our constituents feel so strongly, we must have a firm but fair immigration policy. If they do not believe the Government take immigration seriously, the only people who benefit are extremists. We know that many people have extreme views on immigration.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend hears pleas for unaffordable, high-value and new treatments for cancers and so on, but the pot is not limitless. Our constituents wish to know that those who have contributed to the pot will be able to take from it in their time of need. We might provide universal health care, but we do not provide global health care.

[Mr Syms]

Absolutely. The measure does not affect accident and emergency or short-term care, but it is a signal that the Government are serious. We should not squander resources on those who do not deserve them, particularly if people are waiting for operations. One figure used today is that 4,000 more doctors could be employed if we collected the money. There is therefore a prize for tightening the system.

Given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, I do not intend to go on much longer. I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill. I would be happy to serve in Committee if asked, and I look forward to the Bill’s progress through the House, because it is an important priority for the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. These are the sort of people I worry will fall foul of the Bill because they struggle to provide their documentation. We know that there are a lot of people who fall through the net when they are first given refugee status and end up destitute. They make up the bulk of the people whom the British Red Cross deals with in terms of food parcels because they cannot prove their entitlement to benefits. A significant number of people have the right to stay but will struggle to be able to prove it.

Personally, I have never seen an organisation more in need of checks and balances on its own use of power than the Home Office or, indeed, its predecessor, the Border Agency. Instead, the Bill gives powers that it is not equipped, nor frankly able, to meet and powers that it cannot be relied upon to exercise properly. Where it exceeds or abuses its power, or simply fails to do the job, it will be shielded from challenge in many cases and there will be no redress whatever. The implications of the Bill cannot be understood without also placing it in the wider context of legal aid changes and proposals to restrict judicial review.

The problem is that the impact on individual lives gets lost in the grandstanding of headlines. When immigration is all about reducing numbers on a spreadsheet to meet an arbitrary cap or creating arbitrary political dividing lines and traps for opponents to fall into, the subjects of the legislation—the human beings at the centre of it—are somehow invisible. I am weary of a politics that creates and defines enemies in order to demonstrate potency but, frankly, it angers me to see politics do that at the expense of those who have the least power to change their own futures. All three Front Benches, I am afraid, are at it, including my own, scrabbling over the mantle of toughness, chasing opinion polls and, in some cases, wilfully whipping up fear and loathing in the process. It is staggeringly careless with lives and with community relationships that have been built up over a long time.

I am afraid that whatever the damage that is done by the detail of the Bill when, I dare say, it is ultimately passed, some of the worst damage has been done in our debate in the lead-up to it. The language with which this was brought forward is what really causes the damage to community relations. I remind hon. Members of the debate we had earlier about the Home Office vans. That is a case in point; it had almost no effect on the ground except to whip up real tension between communities. My constituency was one of those areas that was targeted by the vans.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I can understand the passion with which the hon. Lady is speaking and she is making a very sensitive point, but does she agree that there is an element to this that involves the prevention of exploitation of vulnerable people who are brought in illegally, treated badly and fall outside the system? If their pimps and traffickers are unable to do that because we have tougher immigration laws, we will free those people from being put in that awful position. I had a young lady brought to me whose passport had been taken off her. If people can come to our country legally, it will stop those who want to be able to take advantage of them outside the system.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I ask hon. Members to make interventions that are brief? We have a lot of colleagues to accommodate and I am keen to do so.