Immigration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

We can all agree that we do not want to see anyone attempt to gain illegal entry into the UK by means of being smuggled in an overcrowded boat or vessel. Ensuring that immigration officials have the proper power to carry out their important duties is important not only in terms of enforcing our immigration control but with regards to increasing safety at sea.

That said, part 6 and, in particular, schedule 8 introduce a raft of new powers for immigration and maritime officers. It is only right and proper that we scrutinise those powers appropriately to ensure that the proper powers are being introduced to the correct officers and that they balance appropriately with the liberties that people are entitled to. I am not convinced that these provisions in their current form meet that aim and balance the equipping of immigration officers with the power that they need with ensuring that they treat international citizens with the respect that they deserve. Therefore, the aim of the amendments is to strike that balance between protecting an individual’s liberty and human rights and giving Home Office officers sufficient, important powers to carry out their duties. I accept that this is a difficult balance for the Home Office to strike.

We should be concerned about the regular use of the word “elsewhere” throughout this section of the Bill and what that implies. This in particular relates to the searches that will be conducted into the personal lives of individuals. In earlier sittings of the Committee, we have spoken about the dangers of speculative searches and the Home Office’s poor track record on completing them. I will not repeat the arguments already made but I will stress that these searches could have a significant and deteriorating impact on community relations and social cohesion.

Amendments 239, 240 and 241 make the point that, regardless of what happens with the Bill and the form it ends up taking, regardless of what law is finally passed, we all need to be sure that we have fully trained, capable and appropriate individuals carrying out the checks and enforcement that the law will demand. They will have powers of arrest without warrant, search, arrest and seizure. The Bill proposes that persons wholly unspecified may be able to carry out all these powers without limitation, under supervision of an immigration officer. Any powers under these provisions should be exercised by immigration officers alone. The amendments will ensure that the Home Office has the appropriate immigration officers carrying out the proper checks. The power and functions relating to this section of the Bill are wide and varied, including arresting without warrant, seizing property and conducting searches. The implications for the individuals concerned are so severe that these functions must be exercised by fully trained immigration officers. There is no excuse for them not to be.

The responsibilities of immigration officers who are operating at sea are arguably more demanding than those who are operating on land. Not only do they have to be qualified in immigration law, but they have to be experienced at dealing with ships at sea. This is an extremely important point. Safety concerns are at stake and I again make the point that we cannot make a half-hearted attempt on who we delegate these powers to. Schedule 8 may not have been one of the most widely discussed provisions in the Bill, but that should not distract our attention from it. Events over the summer have highlighted the danger that exists in trying to gain asylum through a vessel of some sort. Schedule 8 grants officers the

“Power to stop, board, divert and detain”

ships for immigration offences. Safety concerns arise in that regard and therefore careful consideration should be given to the schedule and the amendments that have subsequently been proposed.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I hope that, with our clarifications and assurances, hon. Members will realise our purpose and intentions. We are taking the power because of a gap in the law. Until now, there has been a small number of relatively isolated incidents involving suspected facilitation in UK territorial waters. However, those incidents illustrate a gap in the legislation. Border Force officers currently have no powers to act unless the vessel is also of customs interest. In those circumstances, they have to pass the information to immigration officers on land and monitor the vessel’s movements while it remains at sea.

We judge that that gap in the law needs to be addressed to reflect the difference between powers that could be exercised for customs purposes and powers that could be exercised for immigration purposes. It is an issue if the powers cannot be exercised in the context of a vessel that is considered to be smuggling people rather than contraband, given the risk that organised crime groups, as we are seeing elsewhere, may over time seek to smuggle in a different way. The purpose of the schedule is to be prepared and to have the right legislative framework in place to be able to respond to any such risk in UK territorial waters.

Amendments 230 to 235 seek

“To limit the maritime search powers under the Bill to the ship, the port and as conveniently as possible thereafter”.

The amendments raise concerns, as the hon. and learned Gentleman, the shadow Minister, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North have highlighted, about whether the powers could be exercised anywhere on land. For ease, I will simply refer to the part of the schedule that deals with England and Wales, but I assure hon. Members that the same provisions equally apply, in certain other aspects of the schedule, in respect of waters adjacent to the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The power to search in paragraph 3 of new schedule 4A only applies to a search of the ship, anyone on the ship and anything on the ship, as the hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted. The Bill does not limit where the power may be exercised in order to ensure that there are no gaps in the power. He was rightly probing and testing as to the intent of the term “elsewhere”. In part, it ensures that there is provision to arrest a person should they jump overboard to evade enforcement officers. Given the nature of the powers that we are seeking to provide, that could be entirely possible, whether they jump into the water or, if the vessel is in more inland waters, on to land. We need to be able to ensure that the provisions are operable in those circumstances. That will not be possible if the provision is limited to a ship or a port. I reassure the Committee that the test in paragraph 3(1) of new schedule 4A to the Immigration Act 1971 connects the exercise of the powers with suspicion regarding the ship. I hope that that connection may be helpful in giving an understanding of what we are trying to get at here.

[Keir Starmer]

This is in the nature of a probing intervention to ensure that I understand the Minister. The search is constrained by new paragraph 3(2) and I understand the reasoning, but there is no power of arrest in the paragraph; there is only a power of search. So sub-paragraph (8) would not help in the circumstance where someone jumps overboard and needs to be arrested. If someone jumped overboard, they could only be searched. I am probing because I do not quite understand the logic, but it may be that I am not quick enough.

[James Brokenshire]

That is connected to sub-paragraph (3), which states:

“The relevant officer may require the master of the ship, or any member of its crew, to take such action as is necessary for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c).”

Obviously, the officer would require the ship to be taken to a port. That is connected to the ability to search, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has highlighted. There may be circumstances, for example, in which someone jumps off a ship and is rescued by officers where a search may be appropriate under the exercise of that power. We are trying to cover such circumstances. I recognise that he is fairly seeking to probe on that, and I hope my answer is helpful.

Amendments 239 to 244 would ensure that only the officers specified in the Bill can use the powers, and would remove the protection of officers from personal, criminal and civil liability. I will address those two points separately. The provision permitting powers to be exercised by accompanying officers reflects existing powers under other legislation—most notably, the powers recently considered by the House in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The extension of powers to assistants also exists in general for those working alongside customs officers under section 8 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

In my opening comments I sought to explain the arrangement that Border Force officers have responsibility for revenue protection, as well as for the border, and they utilise those powers when they are on board cutters. We have therefore sought to ensure that there is no mismatch between customs powers and immigration powers. Other examples in the maritime context include paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, concerning powers to combat drug smuggling.

The reason why such powers may be given to assistants is not to permit untrained individuals to exercise those powers, but to ensure effective joint working with partner agencies that have at least a basic level of law enforcement training. The measure permits officers from partner organisations who may be working alongside enforcement officers, such as fisheries inspection officers, to assist immigration officers. It is important to emphasise the requirement that such persons must still be supervised.

On the protection of officers against civil and criminal liability, the measure extends only to personal liability; it does not prevent a claim for which an employer may be vicariously liable. When a court considers that officers have acted in good faith and that there were reasonable grounds for their actions, we think it is right from a public policy perspective that they are not held personally liable for carrying out their duties and acting in good faith. There are many other examples of where law enforcement officers are given equivalent protection. I understand that the principle has long been part of English law—prior to this sitting, the Solicitor General and I were discussing that it can be traced back to section 6 of the Constables Protection Act 1750, which I am assured remains in force today. Members may not have anticipated that they would be referring back to certain legislation in Committee, but the Solicitor General has come across the 1750 Act, which I underline.

With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras will recognise that the measure is not an extension of the law but builds on existing legislative practices and principles. I therefore ask him to reflect on what he fairly said are probing amendments to gain a better sense of our intent and the purpose and nature of schedule 8. I hope that he is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I wonder aloud how long that immunity provision, however long-standing it is, can survive. The idea that people are immune from criminal law in that way is hard to reconcile with later legislation, but that is a much bigger argument than the one we are having now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 109, in schedule 8, page 114, line 17, leave out “detain” and insert “retain”.

This amendment and amendments 110 and 112 are minor drafting changes for consistency with language used elsewhere in the Schedule and have no substantive effect.

Amendment 110, in schedule 8, page 118, line 40, leave out “detain” and insert “retain”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 109.

Amendment 111, in schedule 8, page 122, line 6, leave out “(in England and Wales or elsewhere)” and insert “in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment is a minor drafting change for consistency with the language used in the equivalent provisions for England, Wales and Scotland.

Amendment 112, in schedule 8, page 123, line 17, leave out “detain” and insert “retain”.—(James Brokenshire.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 109.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

English language requirements for public sector workers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Brokenshire]

The clause inserts a new section in the Immigration Act 2014 to provide a power to impose a charge on employers sponsoring non-European economic area skilled migrants. In addition, it contains provision for regulations to be made regarding the charge. The immigration skills charge will help to address current and projected skills needs in the UK economy and contribute to reducing net migration. The intention behind the charge is to encourage employers to think differently about their recruitment so that, where possible, they recruit and train up resident workers.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not disagree with the principle, which is right, but I wish to explore some of the detail.

I represent the University of Sheffield, which is involved in apprenticeship training. As I understand the proposals, the money raised from the charge will go to the Consolidated Fund to assist in addressing the skills gap in the UK. The university’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which has been held up as a model by the Government, is involved in higher apprenticeship training, much of which is undertaken by academics who are recruited through the tier 2 route. It appears nonsensical to make a levy on the University of Sheffield and other universities and educational institutions for recruiting tier 2 workers who are actively involved in filling the skills gap. What does the Minister think about that issue?

Similarly, we have received representations from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing about the position in the health service where, because of skills shortages, the Government and the NHS are actively recruiting from abroad. Given the financial pressures on the NHS, does it make sense to levy a skills charge on it? Perhaps that is not the Government’s intent and I have misunderstood the provisions of the Bill, in which case I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify the position on both those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Perhaps I should underline that employers over time should reduce their demand for migrant labour. We recognise that many employers invest in training, but throughout the economy investment in training has been declining over 20 years and use of tier 2 visas is up by 30% if we compare 2010 with 2014. We want to encourage employers to invest in upskilling our resident work force and reduce reliance on migrant labour. The immigration skills charge will fund training of the resident work force, including apprenticeships.

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is whether in principle there should be some exemptions. That is a question that we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been asked to advise on the charge’s impact on different employers. The Government will consider the MAC’s advice in due course; we expect to receive its full advice next month. The MAC will make recommendations, including on the scope and level of the charge. We are setting out the principle. We have asked the MAC to consider some of these details, and we will reflect on its recommendations and implementation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Power to make passport fees regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Brokenshire]

Clause 47 provides new powers to make regulations to charge fees in respect of passport and travel document functions. The measures in the clause focus on increasing the transparency of how passport fees are set.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

New Clause 14

Private hire vehicles etc

‘(1) Schedule (Private hire vehicles etc) (private hire vehicles etc) has effect.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision which—

(a) has a similar effect to the amendments made by Schedule (Private hire vehicles etc), and

(b) applies in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may—

(a) amend, repeal or revoke any enactment;

(b) confer functions on any person.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may not confer functions on—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland,

(c) a Northern Ireland Minister, or

(d) a Northern Ireland department.

(5) In this section “enactment” includes—

(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;

(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation.”—(James Brokenshire.)

This new clause inserts a new Schedule NS1 which amends the licensing regimes for taxis and private hire vehicles in England and Wales. It also contains a regulation-making power to amend the legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland to equivalent effect as that Schedule.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Private hire vehicles etc.

Government amendment 245.

[James Brokenshire]

We move to new clauses, having considered the main substantive provisions of the Bill. New clause 14 requires immigration checks and continuing compliance with immigration laws as part of the existing licensing regime for taxis and private hire vehicles. It does so by adapting existing provisions for private hire vehicles in London in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 and for taxis and private hire vehicles in the rest of England and Wales in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The new clause seeks to prevent illegal migrants and migrants whose status does not permit them to work from holding taxi and private hire driver and operator licences. It is important to note that, because the majority of drivers are self-employed, they are not subject to existing right to work checks. In our judgment, that leaves scope for the sector to be exploited by illegal workers.

Licensing authorities already conduct checks to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a driver or operator licence. However, a licensing authority has discretion as to many of the checks that it undertakes to satisfy itself that someone passes the fit and proper person test. Many licensing authorities make immigration checks, but they are advisory at present. The new clause will make immigration checks mandatory and embed immigration safeguards in the existing licensing regime.

New clause 14 gives effect to new schedule 1, which amends the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 for private hire vehicles in London and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in respect of taxis and private hire vehicles in the rest of England and Wales. The new provisions also make relevant changes so that the same measures can be implemented in London, where the taxi licensing regime is slightly different, by amending the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.

We are in the process of consulting with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government with a view to making similar changes to the licensing legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the Bill or, if that is not possible, by regulations, for which provision is made in the new clause.

I will now comment in more depth on new schedule 1, the main meat of the provisions. On the changes to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 for London, first, the provision ensures that where someone’s immigration leave is time-limited to less than the statutory length for a driver or operator licence, the licence will be issued for a duration that does not exceed the applicant’s period of leave. If someone has so-called section 3C leave under the Immigration Act 1971, because they have, for example, made a valid application to the Home Office to extend their leave, any licence granted will be limited to a period not exceeding six months.

Secondly, if someone is disqualified from continuing to hold a driver or operator licence for immigration reasons, they must return their licence, any copy and their driver’s badge to the licensing authority. Someone who fails to return their licence within seven days without reasonable cause will be committing an offence and, on summary conviction, liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and, in the case of a continuing offence, a daily fine for each day they fail to return the documents after conviction. Thirdly, the grounds for disqualification—this is for someone who already holds a licence—will include that someone has no lawful status in the UK, or has no right to undertake the work in question.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 are similarly amended for operator and driver licences. In addition, the new schedule provides that a licence must not be granted under those Acts to someone who is disqualified by their immigration status. The licensing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in making a decision about someone’s immigration status. Importantly, the new schedule also specifies that the conviction of immigration offences and the requirement to pay penalties since the licence was issued are grounds to revoke a driver or operator licence. That is our approach, which intends to catch operators who may seek to engage people who are in the country unlawfully.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I would like further clarification from the Minister; I did not want to intervene in case he was coming on to this. Will he talk us through the logistics of how the legislation will be enforced?

I welcome the recommendations. I have not gone through the details of them, but it seems that currently different local authorities have different legislation and rules, so there can be confusion about who is responsible for enforcement of the local authority recommendations when people cross the border. Will the Minister talk a little more about how the legislation will be enforced and who will be responsible? He mentioned a seven-day period and said that the local authority would then have to enforce this. How does the local authority find out about that? What will happen with on-the-ground resources to enable the local authority to act? What happens if someone is in violation—will the Home Office or the local authority be responsible for that? I ask for practical ways in which the legislation will work.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her probing questions about enforcement. It is worth underlining that some licensing authorities are already doing basic right to work checks. That is what we are seeking to embed within the overall licensing regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I would like just a little more information. At the moment, if someone fails the fit and proper person test they can appeal through a magistrates court. Is it correct that under these measures that right would go and it would become a straight immigration issue?

[James Brokenshire]

Let us look at the provisions. Paragraph 12 of the new schedule amends the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as follows:

“In section 62(1) (suspension and revocation of operators’ licences) before the “or”…insert…“…that the operator has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty”.

The point is that that will be a matter of established fact. The terms are further defined in proposed new section 79B of the 1976 Act, which is inserted by the new schedule, and defines immigration offences and immigration penalties. The measures will be embedded within the overall framework of the licensing arrangements. If the relevant local authority were, for example, to seek to revoke or suspend a licence, a legal process would no doubt be followed. The point is that it would be made clear whether an operator had been subject to these specific measures, because of the nature of the definitions.

The fit and proper person test is built in. It takes place when someone is applying for a licence. Immigration offences are a clear factor that will have to be weighed in any determination of whether someone is a fit and proper person. If someone does not have the right to be here, the new provisions make it clear that they should not be considered a fit and proper person. That is how we are embedding the measures within the existing process. We believe their operation can be effected smoothly. We will issue guidance, as I have already indicated, to assist local authorities in the implementation of the provisions.

This is a question of raising standards, to ensure that abuse does not take place within the sector. These are positive and important new provisions, which will see immigration enforcement agencies working with local authorities—something that, as I have indicated during our discussions, I strongly support. If we can get our activities embedded well, in places where immigration enforcement officers may come across intelligence and information, we can work smartly with other agencies such as local authorities to raise standards more broadly and root out abuse and rogue operators. The measures are important and distinct, and will, we hope, not only deal with immigration offending and people who are in the country unlawfully and engaging in employment or contracts for services, but raise standards in the sector more generally.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Supply of information to Secretary of State

‘(1) Section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supply of information to Secretary of State) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (10).

(2) For the heading substitute “Power to supply information etc to Secretary of State”.

(3) In subsection (1) for paragraphs (a) to (f) substitute—

“(a) a public authority, or

(b) any specified person, for purposes specified in relation to that person.”

(4) In subsection (1A) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for “a person listed in subsection (1) or someone acting on his behalf” substitute “a public authority or someone acting on behalf of a public authority”.

(5) After subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) This section does not apply to—

(a) information which is held by the Crown Prosecution Service, or

(b) a document or article which comes into the possession of, or is discovered by, the Crown Prosecution Service, or someone acting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service,

if section 40 of the UK Borders Act 2007 applies to the information, document or article.”

(6) After subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) Subsection (2A)(a) does not affect any other power of the Secretary of State to retain a document or article.”

(7) In subsection (3) after paragraph (d) insert—

“(da) anything else that is done in connection with the exercise of a function under any of the Immigration Acts;”.

(8) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) “Public authority” means a person with functions of a public nature but does not include—

(a) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,

(b) either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament,

(c) the Scottish Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in the Scottish Parliament,

(d) the National Assembly for Wales or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly, or

(e) the Northern Ireland Assembly or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly.”

(9) Omit subsection (4).

(10) After subsection (6) insert—

“(7) Nothing in this section authorises information, a document or an article to be supplied if to do so would contravene a restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”

(11) After section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 insert—

“20A Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State

(1) This section applies to a nationality document which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing is lawfully in the possession of a person listed in Schedule A1.

(2) The Secretary of State may direct the person to supply the document to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State suspects that—

(a) a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and

(b) the document may facilitate the removal.

(3) A person to whom a direction is given must, as soon as is practicable, supply the document to the Secretary of State.

(4) If the document was originally created in hard copy form and the person possesses the original document, it must be supplied to the Secretary of State unless it is required by the person for the performance of any of the person’s functions.

(5) If the original document is required by the person for the performance of any of the person’s functions—

(a) the person must, as soon as is practicable, supply a copy of the document to the Secretary of State, and

(b) if subsequently the person no longer requires the original document, the person must supply it to the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable after it is no longer required.

(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply if the Secretary of State notifies the person that the original document is no longer required.

(7) If subsection (5) applies the person may make a copy of the original document before supplying it to the Secretary of State.

(8) The Secretary of State may retain a nationality document supplied under this section while the Secretary of State suspects that—

(a) a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and

(b) retention of the document may facilitate the removal.

(9) Subsection (8) does not affect any other power of the Secretary of State to retain a document.

(10) The Secretary of State may dispose of a nationality document supplied under this section in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.

(11) Nothing in this section authorises or requires a document to be supplied if to do so would contravene a restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).

(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule A1 so as to add, modify or remove a reference to a person or description of person.

(13) Regulations under subsection (12) may not amend Schedule A1 so as to apply this section to—

(a) either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament,

(b) the Scottish Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in the Scottish Parliament,

(c) the National Assembly for Wales or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly, or

(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly.

(14) In this section “nationality document” means a document which might—

(a) establish a person’s identity, nationality or citizenship, or

(b) indicate the place from which a person has travelled to the United Kingdom or to which a person is proposing to go.”

(12) In section 166 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (regulations and orders)—

(a) after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) No regulations under section 20A(12) which amend Schedule A1 so as to—

(a) add a reference to a person or description of person, or

(b) modify a reference to a person or description of person otherwise than in consequence of a change of name or transfer of functions,

are to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”, and

(b) in subsection (6), before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—

“(ab) under section 20A(12) and which falls within subsection (5A),”.’

(13) Before Schedule 1 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 insert the Schedule A1 set out in Schedule (Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State: persons to whom duty applies).”—(The Solicitor General.)

This amendment expands the information gateway in section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for the voluntary supply of information to the Secretary of State for immigration purposes. It also places a duty on authorities listed in new Schedule A1 to that Act (see NS2) to supply nationality documents to the Secretary of State where directed to do so.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Solicitor General]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

In the immigration debate that took place in the Chamber, I spoke about a child who had been in detention. I know that the policy, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, is no longer to detain children, but I want to repeat what I said about that child, and I will explain why.

I talked about a 10-year-old boy who was detained with his mother in Dungavel in Scotland and was then moved to Yarl’s Wood. He lost 10 lb in three weeks and lost so much hope that he turned to his mother one day and whispered, “It would be easier if we died. Mummy, please can we die?” I appreciate that there is not a person in this room—I have absolutely no doubt—who, if that child were standing in front of them, would not do whatever they could to help that child. This was somebody I knew pretty well.

Okay, so we only detain adults now, but I am not willing to believe that there is any Member here who, if they had a woman standing in front of them who had been through so much trouble to get here, who was a victim of sexual violence, and they could make the decision about that one person standing there, having heard her story, would not help her. I do not believe that any of us would not use the key that we have to free her from detention if we were able to do it. They are not standing in front of us now, but we are the ones who hold the key to whether those people suffer in the way that many hon. Members have described. That mother wanted to comfort her child. She wanted to reassure her child that it would be over soon, that “this will be happening” in two weeks or one week, three days or three months or whatever, but she could not. She could not reassure herself because she had no idea how long they were going to be there.

I think that the worst thing for people is not having a clue when or where it is going to end. I visited a family in Dungavel a number of years ago, as an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament and I felt intimidated. I felt intimidated by the surroundings and the uniforms, by the big jangle of the keys, by the prison-like atmosphere and the fact that I was fingerprinted. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and they fingerprinted me as I went in. If I felt intimidated, what must it feel like to somebody who has absolutely no control over their life, and has not had any for a long time because they have had to flee their country and ask for help in a foreign country? I cannot imagine it.

I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has done, to the organisations that support people in detention. I particularly encourage the organisations that demonstrate outside such facilities to continue to do so, because it makes a big difference to the people inside. There was a demonstration at Dungavel a couple of weeks ago. I know people who went, although I was unable to attend.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady is making her case and has indicated that she thinks that the measures do not go far enough. Just so that I understand, does she believe that there is a role at all for detention in immigration removal?

[Anne McLaughlin]

As a last resort. I have never said that we should never detain anybody, but detention is to be used as a last resort. In fact, I think the Minister himself said that the power to detain should be exercised only sparingly and for the shortest possible time. I do not know whether that is the case, but it should be the case.

If it is for the shortest possible time, that is a good argument for having a time limit in statute. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, who said—I think the report of the inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK also made the point—that, without a time limit, the casework will suffer. We are all human beings. I am a deadlines kind of person; I do things at the deadline. I would love to be the kind of person who does things in preparation for a deadline, and I am always telling myself that I will be that kind of person, but we are all human and we all work to deadlines. If there is no deadline, of course things take a lot longer.

I also wanted to say something about the categories of people who could not be detained if the new clause were accepted. They would include people who have been trafficked. In an earlier sitting, several Conservative Members and I had a debate about people allowing themselves to be trafficked. I was pretty upset at the time, as were a lot of people, but I realise now how that misunderstanding came about: it is because there is an awful lot of talk in the media about people trafficking when it is actually people smuggling. I accept that is not the fault of the people who pick up the term, but the language that we use is extremely important. If we all accept that trafficking involves coercion and is done against the person’s will and that those people have effectively been kidnapped, I hope that we can accept that detention is an absolutely dreadful experience for them and affects them even more severely. I certainly support not detaining that group of people.

On the assisted returns project, I reassure the Minister, as I have said, that I understand that sometimes people must be detained. I also understand that sometimes they must be deported—removed from this country—because not everyone is entitled to live here. If that is done, it is far better to continue with schemes such as the family returns project. I have constituents and friends who do not want to return because their memories are of the country that they came from as it was when they left. All they need is reassurance from somebody that they trust that it is not the way it was, that it is safe for them and that there will be provisions and protections for them.

Most people who come to live in this country do so in such circumstances. They do not come here because they desperately want to live here. Most people would rather live in the country that they have come from. In leaving, they are leaving their family, their friends, their neighbourhood and the school that they went to. Most people do not want to give that up. Sometimes they need reassurance that they will be protected and that life is very different in the country that we are returning them to. That is why the approach must not be to criminalise them, lock them up or refuse to tell them when or if they will be leaving. The approach should be more humane than that, and should be about working with them rather than against them.

[Sarah Champion]

I will speak very briefly to the new clauses, because they seem logical and non-contentious. I am particularly pleased that they have been tabled in a cross-party manner and that they were developed from a cross-party inquiry by the all-party groups on refugees and on migration. They build on existing legislation, such the Modern Slavery Act 2015; that is particularly true of new clause 1.

We whizzed through all the new clauses and amendments, so I want to read the explanatory statement to new clause 1, which

“would provide that pregnant women, victims of trafficking, torture and sexual violence, and any other group prescribed by the Secretary of State, may not be detained pending an examination or decision by an immigration officer.”

I hope that the groups prescribed by the Secretary of State would include vulnerable adults, particularly those with a learning age that is deemed to be under 18.

I want to focus on women, pre-empting some of the arguments that Ministers might make against the measures, particularly new clause 1. The organisation Women For Refugee Women has said that 72% of asylum seekers have been raped as part of the persecution that they are fleeing, and almost all have been victims of gender-related persecution. I ask the Minister to consider that. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees detention guidelines state:

“Victims of torture and other serious physical, psychological or sexual violence also need special attention and should generally not be detained.”

I would also like to draw to the Committee’s attention the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is working hard to end sexual violence in conflict by protecting survivors and actively prosecuting perpetrators. It seems to me irrational that while the FCO is working so hard and courageously, and receiving great commendation internationally for doing so, the Bill will effectively re-traumatise victims who have crossed borders to find safety in this country. It is also my understanding that the Home Office’s policy is to detain pregnant women only in exceptional circumstances. I therefore ask Ministers to give serious consideration to new clauses 1 and 3.

[James Brokenshire]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on an area of policy that is challenging and difficult. I say that because a significant proportion of those in immigration removal centres will be foreign national offenders. There has been a lot of discussion about asylum claimants, but if someone has made a claim for asylum, they should be receiving humanitarian protection. Hon. Members will equally know, for example, that we have suspended the detained fast track—a decision I took—to ensure that appropriate issues about vulnerability can be properly reflected in the arrangements.

There is a real challenge, about which I caution hon. Members, because if the official Opposition vote for new clause 3, they will be voting for a change of their policy. I note that exclusions were previously advanced for foreign national offenders and other groups, in recognition of some of the complexities and other challenges in this matter. People will seek to frustrate their removal at all costs. That is why, regrettably, there will always be a need for some level of immigration detention for when individuals fail to comply with requirements to leave the UK, seek to frustrate their removal or seek at times to use time limits as a means to string things out, because they know that they may gain advantage. Having said all of that, we are clear that detention should be used sparingly and only as a last resort.

We take our duty of care to those who are in detention seriously, for example, through healthcare and other provision. I recognise the reports on the issue of vulnerability to which I will come on, but there are many people working in immigration removal centres day in, day out, doing a tough and challenging job. In commenting on a number of the points made today, I put on the record my appreciation for those who are doing that tough job that supports our immigration centres and seeks to ensure that detainees are treated in a just, fair, appropriate and dignified way.

I underline that alternatives to detention should be used where possible, and I recognise that more can be done. The Bill and its new powers are part of the wider work to ensure that the Home Office has the right measures to manage individuals who are not detained and to ensure that they leave the UK when they no longer have any rights to be here. I continue to give great thought to ensuring that we provide an effective system that delivers value for money and seeks the departure or removal of increasing numbers of people who have no right to be here. There is the balance between enforced removal and encouraged or facilitated departure and we have already debated that broadly in respect of family groups.

New clause 1 would introduce a statutory prohibition on the detention of pregnant women and victims of torture, trafficking and sexual abuse. I note the generous way in which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central sought to recognise that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) who, on Second Reading, tabled an amendment on this issue. Along with many other Members of the House, he is tireless in his work on issues of immigration and detention and takes such matters seriously. I pay tribute to the former Member, Sarah Teather, who chaired the all-party group on refugees. While we did not always see eye to eye, I never doubted her focus and determination to ensure that the issues were considered by the House. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was part of that all-party group and continues that work.

I can tell the Committee that we take such issues extraordinarily seriously and they weigh heavily on Ministers when we seek to deprive people of their liberty. Therefore, in our approach we seek to ensure that detention is part of a removals process, which at times has to take into account issues of public protection as well. The issues of safeguarding and vulnerability are very much in our minds and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commissioned Stephen Shaw, the former prisons and probation ombudsman, to undertake an in-depth review of how the Home Office treats vulnerable people who are detained. As I indicated, that is why I suspended the detained fast track, because I could not be satisfied that safeguards were operating effectively.

The Committee will be aware that we have received Mr Shaw’s report and are considering our response to that important issue. We are actively considering the report’s recommendations and we will come back to the House in due course to report on that.

I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was seeking a timeframe from me. We are not seeking to delay; we are considering those issues carefully, but I want to get it right and come back to the House with an appropriate response that recognises the thorough work that Mr Shaw has undertaken.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for his comments on that specific issue. Will he come back to the House with a response to that review before the Bill has completed its journey through both Houses?

[James Brokenshire]

I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I wish to ensure that we publish the report and the Government’s response before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. Equally, I want to ensure that we come back when we can. It is important that we reflect properly on the report and the recommendations, which we are actively doing.

During our debate on bail, I made it clear that vulnerable people should not normally be detained under immigration powers. I reiterate that point now. This approach is our published policy. We have a clear list of individuals who are not normally suitable for detention unless there are exceptional circumstances in play. The list includes pregnant women, the elderly, and those who have been identified by the competent authority under the national referral mechanism as victims of trafficking and torture. It is unlawful to act in a way that is contrary to our published policy.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of mental health and release from detention. He asked whether there would ever be circumstances where a high-risk individual may need to be released from immigration detention because of their poor mental health. I can confirm that there will be some cases involving mental health issues where an individual should not be detained under immigration powers, no matter how high the risk and no matter how imminent the removal. In those cases, the right course of action will normally be to transfer to the appropriate authorities.

The new clause lacks definitions of the relevant exclusions and, as such, would be open to broad interpretation, so it contains weaknesses. Such an approach could leave the Home Office open to damages. For example, if a woman was pregnant at the point of detention but not aware of the fact or chose not to disclose her pregnancy, the Home Office could be sued for damages after the fact. It is an unfortunate reality that, in some cases, individuals will not comply with the requirement to leave the UK and their removal must be enforced, which often requires a short period of detention.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying but could he not just write safeguards into the legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

I am making a technical point on the drafting of the new clause. There are issues of principle, but we believe that even if the principle were accepted, there are technical deficiencies in the drafting that Members might wish to reflect on, given that no amendments have been tabled.

[Sarah Champion]

I appreciate the open and generous way in which the Minister has approached the matter. I would like to build on what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said. If the Committee supported the intention of the new clause, we would be very keen to work with the Minister to try to get the wording in such a state that the Home Office felt comfortable in taking it forward.

[James Brokenshire]

I do not support the new clause. I am certain that the intention behind it is not to undermine immigration control or to reward those who make spurious claims about being a victim of hideous events to avoid enforced removal when they refuse to leave the UK voluntarily. Sadly, those cases exist, which is why this is difficult territory and regrettably, that may be the practical effect of the new clause. However, I recognise that the issue of vulnerable people in detention is a major concern to MPs and to many people outside the House. I therefore ask that the Government are given time fully to consider Stephen Shaw’s review before the House legislates on a very complex issue.

New clause 3 would introduce a statutory time limit on detention unless the individual was listed in the regulations as being exempt from the time limit. There is a common misconception that detention under immigration powers is indefinite. I want to make it clear to the Committee that that is not the case. Although there is no fixed statutory time limit on the duration of detention under immigration powers, it is not the case that there is no time limit. It is limited by statutory measures, the European convention on human rights, the common law, including principles set out in domestic case law, and the legal obligations arising from the Home Office’s published policy, which states:

“Detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

On the question of “indefinite”, surely the detention is indefinite in the sense that there is no definite limit to it. The detention might not be unending, but it is indefinite in the way that we all understand “indefinite”.

[James Brokenshire]

Indefinite detention implies detention that cannot be brought to an end. For reasons of bail and the relevant principles in common law, the detention has to be linked to the ability to remove.

If we look at the cohort likely to be in detention for longer, the vast majority are foreign national offenders. That is the reality we are dealing with. There might be challenges that we are working through on identification, so that they may get the relevant travel documentation, or they might take other measures to prevent their removal. There are a number of challenging policy issues in this area, but I underline the policy principles that exist in respect of why detention is there and why it is linked to removal. Equally, I underline the relevant safeguards.

Hon. Members might say that non-compliant cases could be added to the regulation that sets out cases where the 28-day limit does not apply, but the use of the detention power is increasingly focused on non-compliant individuals to ensure their removal. In reality, even if the clause was founded in that way, there would be little impact if non-compliant cases were added to the list.

I recognise what hon. Members have said about ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. I am proud that the Government have introduced measures to ensure that the routine detention of children under immigration powers is used only in very, very limited circumstances. Equally, we do not detain individuals for age-assessment purposes. In cases in which an individual is held in an immigration removal centre and doubts arise as to whether they are an adult, we aim to release them immediately into local authority care, pending an age assessment.

I recognise that we are discussing a controversial policy area, but I underline the fact that we are dealing with the details. There are a range of public policy views and objectives that need to be advanced, but ultimately there are clear safeguards in the system. We will continue to reflect carefully on the issues of vulnerability, but I hope that, given those assurances, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central is minded to withdraw the new clause.

[The Chair]

I remind the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that he may withdraw new clause 1, or press both new clauses to a vote—that is a matter for him—but he will be winding up the debate on new clauses 1 and 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before we adjourn, I add that I may not be with you again if business finishes on Tuesday morning next week. I thank the Clerks, Members on both sides of the Committee, including those on the Front and Back Benches, and everyone for their co-operation during proceedings.

[James Brokenshire]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. As this may be our last opportunity as a Committee to recognise your contribution to the Bill in ensuring that our consideration is in order and in adding to the good-natured spirit of our proceedings, may I, on behalf of the Committee, thank you for your chairmanship? We have very much appreciated your guidance and assistance, which has added to our consideration of the Bill.

[Keir Starmer]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. I endorse that point of order. Not only for the group the Minister spoke of but for those of us who have gone round this track for the first time, your help and assistance and that of the Clerks has been invaluable to each and all of us.

Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

It is important to remember that not all people who are being detained in detention centres are criminals or offenders. With that in mind, the wording and terminology is extremely important as we do not want to create a system or a process that gives a false, misleading or wrong impression. The Bill removes the concept of temporary admission and creates a situation whereby anyone without leave who is waiting for a decision on their application will be on immigration bail. Therefore, saying that someone is on immigration bail implies that they have conducted a criminal act of some sort, and that they are on temporary release from their place of imprisonment. However, as has been pointed out by the helpful House of Commons Library paper, people can be detained for a number of innocent and excusable reasons, such as detention until such time as a person’s identity or basis of claim has been established—asylum seekers, stateless citizens and so on. It is not right to claim that such people are on bail, since they are innocent people who have not done anything wrong. As such, “temporary admission” is a more fitting and appropriate term.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and others make the important point that:

“The terminology of ‘immigration bail’ suggests that detention is the norm and liberty an aberration and also suggest that persons seeking asylum are a form of criminal”.

Liberty also makes the point that:

“A large number of asylum seekers, previously granted temporary admission will now be seen exclusively through a prism of detention and bail, casting aspersions of illegitimacy and criminality”.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their contributions to this debate. As has already been alluded to, clause 29 simplifies the current complex legal framework contained in schedule 2 and schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 that allows individuals to be released while liable to immigration detention. The clause brings into force schedule 5 to the Bill which replaces six separate existing bail, temporary admission and release on restriction powers with a single clear framework setting out who can be bailed under immigration powers; the conditions that can be imposed on individuals; and the consequences if an individual breaches bail conditions.

The administration of the system will be largely unaffected by the changes. Rather, it is the underlying power that is being modified. The role of the Home Office and the tribunal would be largely unchanged and processes will remain the same. In responding to the amendments, it is important to understand that we do not seek to change anything as a consequence of this in terms of the treatment of people. It is important to spell out that clause 29 and schedule 5 do not effect any change in policy. Our policy remains one under which there is a presumption of liberty.

As hon. Members have highlighted, the amendments essentially serve the same purpose. They rename immigration bail “temporary admission”. It has been said that the use of the term bail may give some criminal context to individuals. I reject that view. The concept of immigration bail is long established and there should not be any confusion with criminal bail, which is provided for under an entirely separate legislative framework. We heard in evidence to our Committee that Schedule 5 simplifies a number of these provisions. We believe it will make these structures and systems more understandable and easier to follow by having them in the one place and presented in the way that they are. Individuals will have a much better understanding of the system and of their position.

It has also been said that the reference to immigration law reflects a change in policy, perhaps indicating that there is some emphasis that is taking us in a different direction. That is absolutely not the case. There is no presumption for immigration detention. I want to be clear that that is not the case. Our policy remains as it is on the presumption of liberty with the use of detention only as a last resort.

I note the point on the terminology of immigration bail. We reflected on the language and determined to choose it, because we believe that it is already commonly understood among practitioners in the system and should therefore aid attempts to understand the system better. It is not in any sense an effort to give some sort of criminal context nor to change policy in any way. It is, rather, using a term that is already used in many contexts that would continue to be covered in respect of the provisions that clause 29 and schedule 5 seek to operate.

I recognise the extension that has been highlighted in the different forms of leave. In our judgment, it would make it more complex to try to self-categorise and we therefore, in drafting the Bill, felt that the term bail reflected the right approach and terminology. I take on board the genuine sentiment behind the amendments, but with the clarity that I have given on there being no change in emphasis, policy or the manner in which anyone would be viewed or treated under the provisions, I hope that Members will withdraw their amendment.

[Sarah Champion]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

Before I sit down I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister is extremely generous. I think the Minister understands where we are coming from. We have an international reputation for our human rights and for the progressive way in which we treat immigration issues. But there has been an undercurrent of language that has been used by the Government and has also been cropping up in this Committee. The language is more aggressive in tone and we have been told that it is about putting out statements to prevent people coming here. While I completely agree with the Minister’s logic, I think the use of the term “bail” has criminal connotations in the general population.

[James Brokenshire]

The tone the Committee has adopted towards the measures in the Bill has been that they should be firm but fair. That is the approach that I have sought to provide. Yes, this is about sending a clear message that those who have no right to be in the country should leave, and we will support and facilitate that. With regard to the specific provision, it is not a pejorative term. The term immigration bail is already used and I have sought to distinguish it from criminal bail. That is understood in respect of the differences in the system.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North was right that people who might be subject to an Immigration Act might not have committed a criminal offence. Detention can be and is used properly for the removal of someone who does not have the right to be in the country to their home country. Bail may be appropriate if it is determined that the principles that underpin detention—often referred to as the Hardial Singh principles—are not adhered to. In such circumstances, bail or continued detention may not be appropriate.

It is understood in that context, rather than having any negative sense. I certainly would not wish to communicate to the Committee—and I do not think I have—any negative approach or term by the use of the word bail in the context of this provision. I do understand the sentiment and the point made by hon. Members across the Committee. With that clarity of intent and approach towards the provisions, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras will withdraw the amendment.

[Keir Starmer]

The Minister has been very clear in his response to the proposed amendments, both as to the intent and as to what is not intended to change. I am grateful to him for that and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Brokenshire]

I rise briefly to speak to clause 29 as I know that the more substantive debate will be on the underlying schedule—schedule 5. I emphasise that the proposal is intended to give clarity to the circumstances in which immigration bail is intended to operate. There are various lines of cases that operate in this sphere, in particular a current Court of Appeal case that has suggested that immigration bail conditions could be applied only when there was a right to detain. That certainly goes against existing understanding and practice and pre-existing law. That particular case is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court and has been stayed, so it does not have immediate effect.

Our judgment is that the provisions in clause 29 and schedule 5 give further clarity and are important in the context not only of simplification, putting everything into one place and promoting better understanding, but of providing clarity and certainty in law. That is why I hope that the Committee will be minded to include the clause in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Immigration bail

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 199, in schedule 5, page 78, line 28, at end insert—

“( ) The following provisions apply if a person is detained under any provisions set out in paragraph (current Schedule 5 paragraph 1(1))—

(a) the Secretary of State must arrange a reference to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine whether the detained person should be released on bail;

(b) the Secretary of State must secure that a first reference to the First-tier Tribunal is made no later than the eighth day following that on which the detained person was detained;

(c) if the detained person remains in detention, the Secretary of State must secure that a second reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Commission is made no later than the thirty-sixth day following that on which the detained person was detained and every twenty-eighth day thereafter;

(d) the First-tier Tribunal hearing a case referred to it under this section must proceed as if the detained person had made an application to it for bail; and

(e) the First-tier Tribunal must determine the matter—

(i) on a first reference, before the tenth day following that on which the person concerned was detained; and

(ii) on a second and subsequent reference, before the thirty-eighth day following that on which he was detained.

( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘First-tier Tribunal’ means—

(a) if the detained person has brought an appeal under the Immigration Acts, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal dealing with his appeal; and

(b) in any other case, such chamber of the First-tier Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

( ) In the case of a detained person to whom section 3(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 applies (jurisdiction in relation to bail for persons detained on grounds of national security) a reference under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, shall be to the Commission and not to the First-tier Tribunal.

( ) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 may include provision made for the purposes of this paragraph.”

To make provision for automatic bail hearings, after eight days, 28 days and every 28 days thereafter.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall take amendments 212 to 214 together. They address the different and controversial issue—controversial in the sense that it does not just crop up in the immigration field—of the ability to withhold bail on the basis that it is in the best interests of the individual. In the past, that ability has been used in relation to those with mental health issues, for example, or where there is considered to be a risk of suicide. The powers have been used in other areas—the criminal justice context is the obvious one—to detain someone for their own good, as it is understood or perceived. The provision is certainly wide enough for that unless assurances are given to the contrary. The other example of its use in a criminal justice context is where the person might be vulnerable to attack or abuse, and the detention is for their own protection.

[James Brokenshire]

On the point about vulnerability and acute mental health episodes, that is something that we are considering closely with the Department of Health. I am clear that an individual in those circumstances is best suited in a health setting and not in detention. At times, difficult assessments must be made in ensuring that transfer. Perhaps that will give him a sense of the purpose and manner in which we apply the powers in relation to mental health. He might be reading something into the Bill that we certainly do not read in that way.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention; it certainly clarifies the issue and deals with part of my concern. As the Minister will know, the High Court looked at this in 2010. The case then went to appeal and its decision was upheld. The High Court said that,

“the use of immigration detention to protect a person from themselves, however laudable, is an improper purpose”

and that,

“there are alternative statutory schemes available under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1948 or under the Mental Health Act 1983”

for people with acute and real mental health issues. Notwithstanding the intervention, the concern is that on their face, the provisions are wide enough to enable an individual to be detained in such circumstances. I will wait to hear what the Minister says about how his assurance will be carried into effect in practice, because the provisions are currently wide in the Bill.

I conclude by asking the Minister two questions. First, in what circumstances, if not the harm to self or harmed by others examples—classic criminal justice examples—is it envisaged that the provisions would be used? Secondly, how does the Minister intend to put his assurance, or at least his statement of intention, into practice to ensure that it is not used in the way that the High Court thought inappropriate, as endorsed by the Court of Appeal in 2011 and 2014, and is now considered inappropriate in a criminal justice context? I will wait for the Minister to deal with those two questions before saying any more on that.

Amendment 204 is intended,

“to restore the power provided by Section 4(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for the Secretary of State to provide such accommodation pursuant to a detainee’s application for bail to the Tribunal.”

It is a practical amendment. In part 5 of the Bill, the Home Office is making changes to arrangements for support to be applied to persons under immigration control. We will get to that part of the Bill in due course. One set of circumstances in which support is provided is in the case of persons who might be released on bail who would otherwise be destitute. In other words, section 4(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is used to enable an individual to be granted bail. The concern is that in the absence of that support, the individual will not be able to propose a bail address to the tribunal. If that is the case, they will be detained in circumstances where they would not otherwise be detained.

I am not sure whether that was the intention of those drafting the Bill, but it appears to be one of the consequences. If we are wrong about that, we will reconsider the amendment, but it seems that the consequence could be that a number of people who under the current system would be granted bail without difficulty, because they can provide an address because of the support they have received, will now not be able to do so and will not be bailed, to their detriment and to the detriment of public expense.

Amendment 206 picks up the same theme. It is intended:

“To provide a right of appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Asylum Support) where the Secretary of State decides not to provide support or to discontinue support under this Part to enable a person to meet bail conditions”.

I think that the background points are pretty much the same as the points that I have just made.

Amendment 205, linked to the previous two amendments, would remove the purported limitations on the use of powers to provide support to people to enable them to meet bail conditions to situations where the Secretary of State considers that there are “exceptional circumstances” justifying its use. We have similar concerns here. We wait to hear what the Minister has to say on those three amendments. If our concerns about possible unintended consequences are allayed, it may be sufficient for us to have set out the concerns.

Finally, amendment 207 would provide that a person arrested without a warrant and detained because it was considered that they had breached bail, or there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that, is brought before a tribunal. The amendment almost speaks for itself. In a number of contexts, individuals are released on bail or condition. It happens frequently in the ordinary criminal justice arena. It also operates for those released from prison on condition. In most circumstances, where someone is arrested and re-detained on the basis that they have breached bail conditions, there is usually a provision for a tribunal before which that individual can argue that they had not in fact breached bail. There are thousands of cases, year in, year out, where on examination by a tribunal it is found that the suspected breach of bail is not made. The person concerned is usually put back in the position they were in before being arrested for breach of a bail condition. The amendment would align the provisions with that common-sense approach that prevails elsewhere. That brings me to the end of this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I say at the outset to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, on the subject of the report of the all-party parliamentary group, I wrote to Sarah Teather, who chaired that group as a Member of this House prior to the election, with a formal response. On the issue of vulnerability and the use of detention, we have commissioned Stephen Shaw to review a number of the themes that the hon. and learned Gentleman on. We will be coming back to the House to publish Stephen Shaw’s review and to provide the Government’s response to his recommendations. There is ongoing work on and consideration of the issue of vulnerability and the appropriateness of detention in those circumstances.

I underline the importance that I attach to appropriate procedure and to issues of vulnerability being taken into account within the system. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I took the decision to suspend the detained fast track system so that I could be satisfied that the checks and balances and safeguards in the system were applied appropriately in the context of issues of vulnerability. I frame my opening comments in that way to give him a sense of the significance that I attach to these issues. Depriving someone of their liberty is a serious thing and needs to be allied to the issue of removal. Indeed, there should be the presumption of liberty, to which I think I have alluded to in a previous debate.

Before moving on to the amendments I will briefly touch on the question of mental health and the appropriateness of detention. I have given a clear indication of the most appropriate setting for someone with severe or significant mental health issues that cannot be addressed in a detention setting. I underline the Home Office policy on the detention of individuals suffering from mental illness: other than in very exceptional circumstances, those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention should not normally be detained. All cases are considered on the basis of particular circumstances, and all factors arguing both for and against detention must be considered when deciding whether to detain. Serious mental health problems are likely to be an argument against detention but do not automatically preclude it. There may be other factors, particularly the risks of absconding and of public harm, that argue in favour of detention, and equally I point to cases where detention may be appropriate. For example, it may be necessary and appropriate in exceptional circumstances to maintain a short period of immigration detention when an individual is to be transferred to local authority care where otherwise they would be released on to the streets with no support and care. It may also be necessary for safeguarding reasons; for example, if an unaccompanied child arrives at a port, especially late at night, and there is uncertainty over whether there are any complicating factors.

I underline—and this is something that I continue to discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health—the transfer from detention to a health setting. Someone with a severe mental health episode is likely to require some form of stay in, for example, a secure mental health unit. It is not appropriate to hold someone with an acute mental health problem in an immigration removal centre. There is guidance in place and we have to analyse the issue carefully on a case-by-case basis. If detention is not appropriate, someone should be dealt with under the Mental Health Acts and be taken to a place of safety such as a secure mental health unit. Equally, where a mental health condition may arise in detention, consideration would be given, particularly if it is a severe episode, to their transfer from an immigration removal centre to a health setting in order to treat them properly and appropriately.

[Sarah Champion]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. At the beginning of the Committee stage, the Minister said that he would outline the position of unaccompanied minors under the Bill. It would be incredibly helpful if we could have clarity on how it impacts on them, or where they are excluded, particularly in the forthcoming provisions, otherwise we will keep returning to this area. Would the Minister confirm that we will have that, ideally before Thursday?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Before turning to the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will give way to him.

[Keir Starmer]

Perhaps the Minister would clarify something. I understand the argument that mental health in and of itself does not override the provisions if there is another reason to detain. It would depend on the facts of the case. The assurance the Minister has just given applies where mental health is the only concern, and there is not another reason to detain. Would he be good enough to write to me to set out what he has just said? That is the real issue of concern. I accept that in the other cases, there is the overlap that he has described.

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to raise this issue. As I have tried to elucidate, there has to be an examination on a case-by-case basis but, to return to the principles, the purpose of immigration removal centres and of detaining somebody should be for removal. However, there may be public protection issues as well, particularly if we are looking at foreign national offenders, for example. There are other elements which sit alongside this. There could be someone who is potentially dangerous, and obviously balancing decisions must be taken on the use of immigration detention for public protection reasons.

I understand the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes about whether, from the utility of a public protection standpoint, the provisions and the conditions for immigration bail might be triggered purely on the basis of the individual’s state of mind. I am happy to reflect further on that. Certainly, as I have set out, the approach and the intent concerns what is an appropriate setting for someone. I will look at what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said in Committee and, if there is some further clarification that I can offer, I will certainly review that. There is a sense of the most appropriate setting, and immigration removal centres have to meet certain criteria. The normal Hardial Singh-type principles on detention operate. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a specific point on mental health, and I will reflect further on whether there is anything I can add to what I have said.

Amendment 199 would require a bail hearing in the tribunal after eight days, after 28 days, then every 28 days thereafter. As I have highlighted to the Committee, the Government take matters of liberty extremely seriously, but we do not consider that there is a need for mandatory judicial oversight of detention in terms of the checkpoints that the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined. There is already well-established judicial oversight available. Individuals detained under immigration powers have unrestricted opportunity to apply to the tribunal for bail at any time. They can also apply for a judicial review of their detention, or for a writ of habeas corpus to the High Court, again at any time.

The current system was designed to be flexible in the interests of justice, and allows the detainee ready access to the tribunal. Legal advice and legal aid remain available for challenges to immigration detention. All detainees are made aware of the ability to apply for bail, but there is obviously a need to strike a balance. Introducing automatic bail hearings in all cases would be a further significant burden on the tribunal, with potential financial loss to the taxpayer, and would utilise time that could be spent on other matters. That could prolong the time spent in detention, and could deny other appellants timely access to justice.

It is interesting to note that the House has considered this issue before. The hon. and learned Gentleman may indeed wish to reflect on the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) when the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was in Committee. In respect of the repeal of an uncommenced provision that then existed, the hon. Lady, who was then a Home Office Minister, said:

“We concluded that it would be a logistical nightmare that would divert scarce resources from processing asylum applications. That would make it harder for us to complete the asylum process as speedily as all members of the Committee want…We have to be honest and open about these issues. The administrative consequences of automatic bail hearings are substantial. Given the figures and the potential for bringing the whole system to a halt, it was our reluctant judgment that unfortunately it would not be realistic for us to introduce part III bail hearings. We thought it more open and transparent to repeal those provisions, as the amount of available funding and the priorities we have for getting asylum claims through the system would not allow us sensibly to bring them into effect without that having an adverse or catastrophic effect on our system.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 May 2002; c. 256-57.]

Although I understand the intention behind amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is worth understanding the history and, equally, the challenges of automatic hearings.

During our evidence sessions, much was made of the Home Office seeking to take control of bail from the tribunal, and I want to assure the Committee that that is not the case. It is an inaccurate description of the effect of the bail clause and the schedule. I want to make it clear that the Home Office is already responsible for the management of the vast majority of cases on conditions imposed by the legislation that is being consolidated.

I turn to amendment 200, which would prevent the detention of an individual on bail unless it was thought that they intended to breach, or had breached, their conditions. I think that I understand the intention of the amendment. I underline the purposes for detention, primarily on removal but equally there might be public policy conditions. I suppose what the hon. and learned Gentleman asks is whether we can do more to achieve removal from this country of people who should not be here, without the necessity of detention. That might, in part, underline some of his thinking. Our approach to immigration enforcement seeks to promote and encourage more facilitated or encouraged removals, rather than simply to use detention as a means of achieving the outcome that I think people would want to see. Certainly that is an approach—an embodiment—that we seek to take with our removal strategy. The hon. Member for Rotherham made a point about not only the cost but the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the Minister’s comments about detention and its purposes, but we are talking about a situation in which the tribunal is charged with faithfully going through a test of the individual circumstances of the case. In that situation, in what way and for what purpose does the Minister see the Secretary of State overriding the tribunal? Normally, if one side in a tribunal loses an argument on detentional conditions, there is an appeal route, but this appears to be something different in that the side that loses simply gets on with what it wanted in the first place.

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to that point. It is a slightly different one from the one I was addressing. On amendment 200, I was responding to points about preventing detention where bail had been granted and about re-detaining if there was no risk of a breach. Sometimes, very close to a removal, when it is felt that the safest and most appropriate action would be to use detention, that mechanism may be adopted. Re-detention could be appropriate. It is also worth remembering that people granted bail might never have been detained. There will be people who are allowed into the UK on conditions while their claim is being considered. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not detain such individuals if there were a change in their circumstances—for example, if their claim had been refused—without a suspicion that they were about to breach or had breached conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the position on changes of circumstances. He has given a degree of reassurance, because what he said chimes with other not dissimilar regimes, but the matter is not clear in the Bill. Nothing in the Bill refers to changes of circumstances, so what level of assurance can he give that the provision is not intended to be used, nor will it be used, in a case where there is no change of circumstances?

[James Brokenshire]

If we are talking about detention, we are in many respects back to some of the basic principles as to why detention would be used, such as the immediacy of removal. Alternatively, we are talking about some other public policy objection on the basis of established legal principles around the matter. Those principles are what guide the potential use of the power, in addition to the obvious example of a change in circumstance.

Amendments 210 and 211 are probing. The Committee wants to better understand why there is a need for a restriction on study and what other conditions are envisaged on immigration bail, and when they may be imposed. We have chosen to include a restriction on study as it is something that may be considered under the bail powers. Like the other conditions listed, a restriction on study is only an option that is available; it is not a mandatory requirement and can be imposed as appropriate.

The power is not, as was suggested, about trying to deny education. If a child can lawfully access education services, we will not seek to disrupt that by using restrictions under the bail power to place a prohibition on them attending. We also do not intend to impose through the use of the power a blanket ban on asylum seekers accessing education. Where the power could have utility, however, is on specifying the place at which someone can study, for example. That would mean knowing where they are and saying that they are permitted to study, but only at a particular institution. For example, the wrap-around for a particular family group may be most appropriately provided for by conditions that are allied to a child going to a particular school. I point to it in that way. We have other regimes where conditions can be attached to study that are more towards that stance and approach.

On the broader power to impose conditions as appropriate, it is designed to maintain current flexibility in the ability to impose bail conditions specific to the facts of the case. That is most readily seen in Special Immigration Appeals Commission bail, but it is also seen in some of the most harmful foreign national offender cases. SIAC bail conditions are often bespoke, based on the risk the individual poses. Some cases will require specific conditions to mitigate specific risks. For example, we may want to impose an overnight curfew based on the risk posed, or it may be appropriate to create an exclusion zone if a convicted paedophile is bailed pending deportation.

A slightly more general point I would make is on the question posed on the general conditions that can be attached. The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to argue that that should be limited. My understanding and advice is that that is already maintained in the existing legislative framework and is in essence a read-across from pre-existing legislation. The power to impose any conditions appearing to be likely to result in the appearance of the person answering bail is currently in primary legislation at paragraph 22(2) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. I think it is to maintain the existing flexibility that that applies.

Amendments 201, 202 and 203 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require a residence condition or the imposition of an electronic monitoring condition as a condition of tribunal bail, undermining the Government’s commitment to deliver electronic tagging as part of our manifesto commitments. If we did not take this power, the tribunal could in theory decline to impose a tag. During the evidence sessions earlier in Committee, it was suggested that these provisions make the role of the tribunal meaningless. Let me assure the Committee that that is not the case. The tribunal will still be able to order the release of an individual on bail and will still be able to impose the conditions it sees fit, subject to the specific point that I have highlighted on requiring that an individual resides at a certain address or wears an electronic monitoring device where the tribunal has declined to impose such a condition when granting bail. We expect this power to be used very rarely, as the tribunal would normally impose a residence condition or tag when one is requested. If the Home Office seeks to impose a condition where the tribunal earlier declined to impose one, such a decision would be challengeable by way of judicial review. The Secretary of State would need to justify why the condition was imposed.

[Keir Starmer]

How is it proposed that this will work in practice? There is a hearing before the tribunal. The tribunal goes through the individual facts of the case and there is an argument before the tribunal on whether a condition of electronic tagging, for example, is appropriate. The tribunal looks through all the relevant material and says that in this case, it is not necessary according to the test. As I understand the Minister, the Secretary of State then comes along and says, “That’s all very well, tribunal, we disagree and we are now imposing a condition that you have just decided it is not necessary to impose.” If the individual does not like it, they go to the High Court on judicial review. Is that the regime?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has set out what I have just indicated to the Committee. It is that sense of requiring. We have looked at, for example, foreign national offender-type cases. Our judgment is that foreign national offenders who are in this country unlawfully should be subject to ongoing monitoring through electronic tagging. It is that clear policy intent that we judge, but, as I have indicated, there would be a right of challenge by way of judicial review.

There is a precedent for such a power. The House passed a similar provision in the Immigration Act 2014; the Secretary of State is required to consent to the release of an individual on bail by the tribunal when removal is 14 days or fewer away. The Secretary of State already has that mechanism—in, I accept, a slightly different situation—and that sets a precedent on how the Secretary of State has a direct interest.

Amendments 212, 213 and 214 remove the requirement to consider whether it is in a person’s best interests to be detained before releasing on bail. I understand that these are probing amendments to understand when it will ever be in anyone’s best interests to be detained under immigration powers. First, I want to repeat that it is the Government’s policy that there is a presumption of liberty and that immigration detention should be used as a last resort. I make no apologies for stating that fact again and I hope that the Committee welcomes that clear and unequivocal statement. However, there may be some cases in which immigration and detention powers have to be exercised while arrangements are made for an individual to be transferred to appropriate care. I have given some examples of that in my earlier comments. I want to be clear that the power should only be used in a limited way and for the shortest period possible, but I hope that the Committee understands that that may be needed in those exceptional circumstances.

Amendments 204 and 206 relate to accommodation arrangements for individuals who are on bail. Amendment 204 would create a duty to provide accommodation to anyone released on bail even if they had the funds to secure their own accommodation. Amendment 205 would remove the term “exceptional circumstances” from the new power in the Bill and amendment 206 would create a right of appeal against refusal to provide accommodation to a person released on bail. Schedule 5, paragraph 7 provides a power to allow the Secretary of State to meet accommodation costs and travel expenses for those granted immigration bail. That arrangement is designed to replace section 4(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is repealed by the Bill, but to date has been used to provide accommodation for persons released on bail in the limited circumstances where we judge that that is appropriate. The repeal is part of the wider changes to support provision for failed asylum seekers and other irregular migrants which will be debated later, so I hope to leave detailed debate on that until we get to schedule 6, when we can have a much fuller debate.

The power is deliberately drafted in a restricted way as in general, individuals seeking bail are expected to accommodate themselves or arrange accommodation through friends or relatives. This is no different from the way the section 4 power is currently used. It is clearly inappropriate to spend public money providing accommodation for people who do not need it. It should therefore only be in exceptional circumstances that the Secretary of State should pay for the accommodation of people seeking release from detention on bail. If the person is truly unable to arrange their own accommodation, the powers can be used to provide it on a case-by-case basis, considering the particular circumstances, including whether they are able to avoid the consequences of being left homeless by returning to their own country. It would be unnecessary to use the power to accommodate asylum seekers, as section 95 or section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are already available for this group.

On amendment 205, the concern expressed about the provision appears to be based on the assumption that there will be increased use of detention for a longer period, because bail can only be granted when an address is available. The new bail powers contain the concept of conditional bail, at paragraph 3(8). That will allow the tribunal to grant bail conditional on arrangements specified in the notice being in place to ensure that a person is able to comply with the conditions. Where a residence condition has been applied, it will be for the individual to find a suitable address during the period of conditional bail and, if a suitable address cannot be found, for them to go back to the tribunal for a further hearing. If the person is unable to find an address, consideration will be given to using the powers in paragraph 7 to provide one. We do not consider it necessary to add further complexity to the process by creating a specific right of appeal against refusal to provide an address. Any claim that there has been a refusal to provide an address could be challenged by way of judicial review.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because it may settle this amendment. As I understand the Minister, it is envisaged that the tribunal will use conditional bail to bail someone on the condition of a residence, or an address, unspecified. There will then be a period during which the individual either finds an address or consideration will be given to supporting the individual to have an address so that they can be released. Is that how it is envisaged that this will work, when looked at in the round?

[James Brokenshire]

That is how conditional bail can be used in these circumstances, as I think I described in my response to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s points. I think that I have covered all his amendments and, in the light of that, I hope that he will be minded not to press them.

[Keir Starmer]

I want to press amendment 207 to a vote. I do not know whether it is appropriate, but on amendments 199, 200, 201 to 203 and 212 to 214, I have listened to the Minister with care and I will not press them to a vote now, but I reserve the right to bring them back later, having reflected on what has been said about them.