Immigration Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree, and it is important to get the first principles right. We can have lots of debates and discussions on time limits and setting a maximum— indeed, we had such a debate in the all-party inquiry in which I was proud to take part, along with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and others. I pay tribute to Sarah Teather who fought long and hard on this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and other Members from across the House who were involved in that campaign.

It is important not to be wholly bound by the issue of the time limit. Some of us feel that we may return to the stage where we need a statutory time limit to ensure that there is movement, and so that everyone does all they can to limit time spent in detention. It is important that we listen to what the Minister has to say about the review being undertaken, and we must consider the measures in new clause 13, which I will come on to. We must consider how we want to achieve what we are all saying about the principles that have been outlined.

Work on immigration is taking place, and Stephen Shaw’s review into the conditions of detention is important. We wanted that review sooner, and the Home Affairs Committee—which I sit on—recommended that it be published before these discussions on the Bill. I recognise that the Government are considering that review carefully and want to treat it with the respect that it deserves. We look forward to it being published at a later stage, and it will no doubt inform deliberations in the other place. I welcome indications that a further comprehensive review will go to the heart of new clause 13, and particularly recommendations (b) to (e).

There is a danger that immigration detention will not get sufficient attention. We have done our best to consider it, but it is somewhat out of sight and out of mind. Over the year about 30,000 people are held in 11 immigration removal centres, and apart from campaigns and individual circumstances that sometimes lead to litigation, the issue does not get the attention that it needs. We need serious action one way or another to ensure that immigration detainees are much clearer about when they are likely to be released and have a clear expectation.

I am a criminal defence solicitor, and as I said in a debate scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee, the first question asked by every client once they have ended up in prison, and after they have challenged me about how I dealt with their case, is, “How long have I got? What is the earliest date of release?” We must be able to provide greater clarity and at least some expectation that various gatekeepers and review mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that everyone knows that there is no prospect of indefinite detention, and that there is a greater push and pull to ensure that the smallest number of people are detained for as limited a time as possible.

The new clauses are framed around the inquiry of the all-party group on refugees, which was able to report before the election, and then more substantively in a motion discussed in a Backbench Business debate. That achieved something that has not happened before, which is a unanimous resolution to support the principles and recommendations behind the inquiry. We are concerned about maximum time limits, but we are also concerned about outcomes, which cut across conditions and treatment and go to the numbers in detention and the time they spend there. We want to ensure that we see action. This is a complicated piece of work, as the Minister perhaps knows more than anyone, but new clause 9—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—recognises the issue of foreign national offenders and public protection. It needs to be addressed, and the fact that it is complex and difficult is no reason not to handle it. Given the consequences for public protection, we must be able to handle it better. A quarter of immigration detainees are foreign national offenders in one form or another, so it is not good enough to rely on the issues of public protection alone. We can and should do better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is no longer in her place, mentioned that “28 days” is an arbitrary figure. In one way, it is arbitrary to have an indefinite time in detention: it is an issue of fairness and due process. Cost is another driver, and a cost impact assessment has no doubt been done on the Bill. We have had the comprehensive spending review, and the Home Office is still looking at the issue of cost. The cost of holding one person in detention is more than £36,000 a year, and the overall cost is £164.4 million. There must be better ways to spend that money.

On new clause 8, it is important to look at the individual categories of people we are talking about, away from the statistics, because sometimes we can stereotype them in the wrong way. That goes to the heart of the issue and the concerns that the all-party group expressed. New clause 8 seeks to exempt pregnant women, and people who have been granted asylum as victims of trafficking, torture or sexual violence, from detention orders. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) mentioned this issue and, as I said in an intervention, that provision is already in the guidance, but we need to make sure that it happens and does not get lost in the guidance. Current Home Office guidance identifies vulnerable groups of people—the elderly, pregnant women, those suffering from serious mental illness, torture survivors, those with serious disabilities and victims of human trafficking. No one can suggest that it is immaterial if a woman is pregnant, as my hon. Friend seemed to do: it is material, and pregnant women should be subject to detention only in very exceptional circumstances.

Our inquiry heard that the guidance is not properly applied. Under the screening process, those protections are limited, and it is all too commonplace for victims of torture and trafficking to end up in detention centres for an intolerable time. They end up re-traumatised by what they go through.

In an oral evidence session, we heard from Penny, who was one among many. When she arrived at the IRC she was asked if she had gone through any trauma. Despite saying that she had been a victim of trafficking, her detention continued and she was told that she had fabricated her trafficking experiences. Since her release, she has received formal recognition as a victim of human trafficking. We need to recognise that the screening process does not do enough. It is not surprising, given the language issues. Also, when people who have been through trauma end up in detention, they are unlikely to speak freely and frankly about their experiences. New clause 8 seeks to challenge the Government and asks whether we are doing enough, and the issue will no doubt be informed by the Stephen Shaw recommendations.

We also heard about the Home Office’s failure to comply with its own guidance on detaining pregnant women only in exceptional circumstances. Hindpal Singh Bhui, a team inspector at HM prisons inspectorate, said in evidence that, when looking for evidence that pregnant women were detained only in the most exceptional circumstances,

“we haven’t found those exceptional circumstances in the paperwork to justify their detention in the first place.”

So the Home Office fails at almost the first hurdle. We need to do more because we are failing to protect the most vulnerable people. There must be fair play and they must be treated properly.

I sense that in the future we will look back at the numbers detained in so-called immigration removal centres—that is a bit of a misnomer—and wonder how we tolerated for so long so many people being detained who were victims of torture, trafficking, sexual violence or who were pregnant.

New clause 13 has received the most cross-party support because its provisions are very moderate. It follows the all-party group’s recommendations, the Backbench Business motion and the unanimous resolution of the House in September. I wait to hear from the Minister exactly how he will proceed. There is scope for us to really coalesce behind recommendations (a) to (e) in the new clause, if I can find it—[Interruption.] This is a “Blue Peter” moment—something I prepared earlier.

I want to hear from the Minister that we will look at

“how to reduce the number of people detained”—

and make sure that we put in place procedures, policies and guidance to find a way

“to minimise the length of time an individual is detained”.

We need to develop a more effective form of detention that meets the objectives already put into place by the Secretary of State, and ensure

“the effectiveness of procedures to review decisions to detain and to continue to detain.”

That is what we want to achieve. Some of us feel that we still need a statutory time limit and we want to hold the Government and the Minister to account. But let us see what the Minister says and how that time fits into the progress of the Bill in the other place and following the recommendations in the Stephen Shaw report. The Home Affairs Committee will also be listening to what the Minister says and I hope that we will have an update on the comprehensive review before we go too far down the line in the other place.

I hope that the Bill will mean that we have many fewer people in immigration detention, many fewer in detention for too long and many more people receiving fair play and respect for their human dignity.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Before I speak to three of the amendments, I wish to make some brief points. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) reminded the House that we should not go over the issues that were discussed in full in Committee. I gently say that I would have loved to serve on the Committee. I realise that no one can assuage my concerns this afternoon, but on an issue of such importance—and one that is reserved to this Parliament—it is important to re-emphasise the fact that we need regional representation on a Bill Committee, and that Northern Ireland should have a representative, whether from my party or any of the others, so that we can fully scrutinise the Bill and get involved in these important discussions.

I say, with tongue firmly in cheek, that I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Front Bench earlier in the debate, because I hope to grab hold of him before we get to the second group of amendments.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

Just for the record, I served in Committee as a Welsh Member.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am sure the people of Wales are delighted. Among the three main parties, whether or not SNP Members are present, there is representation of Scotland, England and Wales, and it is important that they were represented in the Committee, but my point was about Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK not only abolished slavery but took full advantage of the slave trade and benefited from it, and that we continue to benefit from its inheritance?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am focusing on anti-slavery because we have a proud tradition of standing against those who exploit others and for those who are exploited. The hon. Lady makes the point that it continues today; I am making the point that in today’s debate, as we focus on amendment 20, we should not lose sight of the compassion this country has shown, continues to show and should show. That is why I support the amendment.

The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to the Minister’s compassionate heart. I do not doubt he has such a heart, but I believe that the small insertion of a defence would be preferable to the suggestion in Committee to let the decision be solely at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If we, as the supreme Parliament of this country, cannot insert a defence and ask the DPP to exercise discretion in certain circumstances, what direction should she take in doing so? It is our role as parliamentarians to say that if somebody is being, or has been, exploited or enslaved in this country, the DPP should consider what we intended the defence to be against the offence of illegal working. I do not consider that to be an onerous insertion or amendment for the Government to consider. Every response to date has indicated that, as we heard on Second Reading, discretion should be provided and that such defences exist already in the Modern Slavery Act. If, therefore, there is no resistance to the prospect of such a defence, why not make provision for it?

I look forward to contributing to the further tranche of amendments, but for now I have outlined where my party stands on the current group.

[Richard Fuller]

I wish to speak to the new clauses and amendments dealing with immigration detention. New clause 8, which stands in my name, would exempt certain persons from detention. New clause 9 and associated amendment 32, tabled by the Opposition, would provide for a time limit. New clause 13, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and many others across the House, would provide for a review of the role of detention centres in our immigration control system.

Before turning to those new clauses and amendments, however, I want to make a brief comment about the amendments tabled by the SNP. Those amendments have nothing to do with separation, but come from an acute sense that the direction of travel in the Bill, which is to make it harder for people here illegally to stay in the country, pushes against not just things we all agree are wrong, such as exploitation, but against our compassion. SNP Members are absolutely right to ask whether we have got the balance right, and they made some strong points in Committee and today.

The amendments and new clauses focus on immigration detention because for so long now we have lacked control over our immigration detention system. We allowed a culture of disbelief to grow up within it such that the people caught up within the system had no way of managing their rights. It is right that we look for a fundamental change. Immigration detention has moved from being a part of the immigration system to being the substantive and default position. The focus is on looking tough rather than being effective. It would be nice to hear from the Minister that he gets that and that he is focusing on an effective way to achieve what the people of this country want: that we remove, effectively and compassionately, people with no right to be here, while standing up for things we want to protect—namely, our compassion and our values. If some of the amendments we are proposing today are not pressed or if we do not hear a sufficient response from the Minister, I fear that the true victims will continue to be the British sense of compassion and the British sense of justice when we manage immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

Our amendment 37 makes provision for automatic judicial oversight of detention after eight days, then after a further 28 days and again every 28 days for so long as the detention lasts. Such judicial oversight will be particularly necessary if the Government persist in refusing to put a proper time limit on detention. Some of the most vulnerable people are least aware of their rights, including their right to bail, so automatic bail hearings will ensure that they are not detained unnecessarily. Finally, our amendment 38 makes provision for an impecunious detainee to be furnished with an address to facilitate their applying for bail, as without an address they are unlikely to be granted it. In our view, the Bill as drafted is ambiguous and risks being read as suggesting that a person coming out of detention can be given support only when they have been granted bail. I urge all Members to support these small rays of light.

[Gavin Robinson]

I appreciate the opportunity to address the House again on Report, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), whose stewardship this afternoon has been thoughtful and thought provoking.

There is one amendment in my name, although I cannot entirely take the credit for it, and I may move slightly away from it, given what the Minister said earlier. It relates to part 7 on the requirement on public services to employ English speakers, with some exceptions for jobs outside mainland UK and so on. I had the opportunity to raise this issue on Second Reading. My first observation was that I was amazed it was not already a requirement. I cannot think of any engagement I have had with any public servant in this country who was unable to speak our language fluently. I also said that I hoped in my contributions in the Chamber and elsewhere to speak English just as well as every other resident of Northern Ireland. Yet the Bill specifically excludes the provisions in part 7 from applying to Northern Ireland.

[Mr Burrowes]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s surprise that there is not already such a requirement. Does he share my surprise that in areas of public life, not least in Enfield, there are councillors who themselves perhaps would not be able to pass the test of being fluent in verbal or indeed written English? [Interruption.] Yes, councillors.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is a wonderful tenet of our democracy that if people wish to choose an individual to represent them irrespective of their linguistic gymnastics, and are satisfied that that person will do so ably and capably, it should be within their gift to endorse them. However, when it comes to those employed in our public services throughout the UK, I think not only that this should be a requirement, but that it should apply in Northern Ireland as well.

Having made such points, it is fair to recognise what the Minister outlined in his opening speech on this tranche of amendments. He said that there are implications for the devolved Administrations and institutions, and that what has been fairly replicated for the devolved Administration in Scotland should most properly have formed the basis of our amendment 1. I accept that point, so if he considers the amendment defective, I will take that on board. However, the principle is well worth pursuing. He helpfully outlined that the Government intend to look at the issue again in the other place, which I welcome.

[James Brokenshire]

It may help the hon. Gentleman to say that, as I indicated in my speech, certain drafting issues need further attention to make the provision effective and consistent with those in the other nations of the UK, but we certainly intend to return to it in the Lords.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments.

While we are on that topic, may I suggest that there is further work to be done in the other place? Schedule 11 relates to maritime enforcement. Reference was made on Second Reading to the failure of the schedule to mention the Belfast harbour police. I think the Minister took on board the fact that it is a properly constituted, legitimate authority that is mandated to operate within the port. It is a private police force, but it looks after the security of the port. I believe that an additional provision relating to the Belfast Harbour Police could be inserted into the Bill in the other place, should the opportunity to do so arise and should such a provision have the Government’s backing. If we are intent on pursuing the thrust of the Bill, and the protections that the maritime provisions will provide, it is important that we give that matter consideration in the other place.

I want to raise a couple of issues that have arisen in recent years that relate to immigration in general and to the UK Border Force in particular. They relate to the new clauses and amendments, so I shall not be straying too far from the subject. Border Force runs a skeleton operation in Northern Ireland. In fact, one could easily be forgiven for thinking that its effective operational role related only to mainland GB.

There are ferry links between my constituency of Belfast East and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and the constituency that Stranraer rests in. I am struggling to remember which one that is, but I think it is Dumfries and Galloway. Stena goes there. UK Border Force will be waiting in Scotland for anyone travelling from our part of the UK to that part of the mainland. Should anyone wish to board the vessel in Belfast in a vehicle, they will not be searched or questioned at all. Foot passengers will go through more invasive security procedures, but the immigration screening does not take place in Belfast. That omission should be looked at.

I want to mention the case of Myriama Yousef. She is a wonderful character who sought asylum in Belfast and received great assistance from the Belfast Central Mission, the Methodist church in the city. I have to be careful about the terminology I use to describe her case. She is either a failed asylum seeker or a refused asylum seeker. She is someone who sought asylum in the United Kingdom and was turned down. She had to spend time in the Larne House detention centre, which is located within the Larne PSNI station. Anyone with any knowledge of security arrangements in Northern Ireland will know that the police stations there are not the most welcoming or inviting places. That is a consequence of our history. Anyone who is detained for immigration reasons in Northern Ireland is held there, in what looks like a military compound, with sangars, high fences, security lighting and security cameras. It is not an acceptable place. Myriama Yousef was deported to the country from which she had entered the UK. She was removed to Dublin, at which point she immediately got on the Ulsterbus, paid her £8.50 fare and was back in Belfast within two hours. Following her subsequent detection, she was brought to Yarl’s Wood.

Another case relates to a point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She talked about a 19-year-old in Beirut who was separated from her family, but this case relates to Johnny Sandhu, an Indian-born solicitor from Northern Ireland who operated in Limavady. He was detected in the serious crime suite inciting a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force to commit murder so that they could evade prosecution. He was subsequently jailed for 10 years and, on his release, he was deported back to India. His family, who relied on him, were left in Northern Ireland. His children, who were going through the education system and doing their GCSEs at the time, were not in a position to up sticks and leave, but their father was never in a position to come back to the United Kingdom.

I would be grateful if the Minister considered cases such as that and the one raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to see how we can be a little more compassionate and recognise that, when someone’s 18th birthday strikes, they do not cut all ties or lose all connection with their family. We should consider how we, as a country, can best ensure that the family unit is held together.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

On Second Reading, I described the Bill as heinous. My experience as a member of the Bill Committee has not altered that impression. The Bill is divisive and disproportionate, and it ultimately lacks a credible evidence base.

The evidence sessions were embarrassing for the Government because the vast majority of the oral and written evidence the Committee received was damning of their proposals. Witnesses from the private, public and third sectors sent the underlying message that the Bill lacks a proper evidence base, is not necessary and is merely being brought about to appease the right wing of the Conservative party and UKIP.

I take issue with part 5, which, among other things, proposes to remove support from those whose asylum applications have been refused. That blanket approach does not allow for the consideration of personal circumstances, nor does it protect families with children. We heard evidence from a number of organisations that voiced concern, shock and deep disgust over part 5, particularly in respect of how it might affect the welfare of children.

In giving evidence, Ilona Pinter of the Children’s Society said:

“We think the risks for children from this provision are very serious indeed. Essentially, it would see families becoming destitute—they would no longer have accommodation and financial support under asylum support. That obviously brings with it a whole range of risks, from families being street homeless to families having to move around, potentially for short periods of time, to stay in potentially unsafe accommodation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 72, Q165.]

Even Lord Green of Deddington from Migrant Watch, with whom I disagree on almost everything else, agreed that asylum seekers with children whose claim has been refused should be treated differently.

Part 1 sets out ambitions to reduce the exploitation of migrants. However, when individuals and, in particular, parents with children are pushed into a vulnerable situation, they are forced into making rash and desperate decisions that only increase their vulnerability and the dangers they face. Most reasonable people would accept that we have a responsibility towards those who have had their asylum application rejected. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that we continue to uphold that responsibility.

Amendment 29 seeks to omit all the changes to support that have been made by the Government by removing clause 37 and schedule 8. Assuming that the Government are not minded to accept such a wholesale change, amendment 40 would ensure that some protection exists for the children of the families affected.

The Government have attempted to simplify the support that is provided in the immigration system by moving from two sets of regulations whereby asylum seekers can claim support to four sets of regulations dealing with support by local government and central Government. That is not simplification as I understand it. Under the Bill, local authorities will be legally prevented from providing support to families, including those with young children, when there are

“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”

by Home Office provisions. In practice, that might create dangerous gaps in the system where support is not provided to vulnerable families.

It is worth repeating the horrendous story of the one-year-old boy, EG, who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. In responding to that example, the Minister stated that the gap in provision was between support from two different Departments. I accept that, but can he guarantee with absolute certainty that his proposals will result in no gaps whatsoever between the support people receive from central Government and local government?

The changes that are proposed by the Government will create a significant financial and administrative burden for local authorities. The Government claim to have consulted widely, but the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities were not content with the level of consultation from the Home Office before the introduction of these provisions.

The underlying reason for removing support from failed asylum seekers is to allow the Government to expedite the removal of affected parties.