Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Gavin Newlands

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

The amendments would allow destitute refused asylum seekers to continue to receive the basic level of support.

On amendment 226, I should point out that what we mean by the basic level of support equates to only £5 in change a day and to housing being provided for those who have nowhere to live. I have to ask whether any of us could afford to live, to eat and to raise a family on that minimum level of support. I would think not. Amendment 227 aims to expand on that by ensuring that asylum seekers have the support they need to exist, although, again, providing only very basic support.

The oft-quoted 2005 Home Office pilot study concluded that the removal of, or reduction in, support provided to asylum-seeking families had no significant influence on removing people from the UK. In fact, the year-long pilot reported that the power to remove support from families

“did not significantly influence behaviour in favour of co-operating with removal…This suggests that the section 9 provision should not be seen as a universal tool to encourage departure”.

Therefore, even though the Bill in general has a poor evidence base, I would direct Members to the evidence that does already exist, which proves that removing all support from a family will have no impact on removing them any sooner from the country.

We have to ask why we are willing to leave people, including children, in such a perilous position. The Still Human Still Here coalition suggests that removing all support could have the opposite effect from the one intended, making it harder for people to be removed from the UK. Receiving continued support will encourage families to continue to stay in touch with the appropriate authorities. That point was expanded on during our evidence sessions by Judith Dennis, from the Refugee Council, who said:

“We think that the Bill is incompatible with the processes for families to engage with the Home Office if they want to return or have come to the end of the asylum process—these measures would not be compatible with that. The Bill will shift responsibility to local authority children’s services, which have a duty to support children in need. We do not think that it will achieve the desired outcome, partly because families will inevitably lose touch with the Home Office—there will be no incentive for them to keep engaging with the Home Office to try to resolve their situation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 5, Q1.]

The amendments aim to correct that by proposing that people be given basic support—and let us be clear that amendment 227 would only increase support from just over £5 a day to just over £6 a day. However, it does set a baseline of 60% of income support, which will, we hope, ensure that families receive the necessary support, but also that they continue to engage with the Home Office.

As a father, I do all I can to ensure that my kids have whatever they need, and I am sure all parents in the room and beyond feel the same. We would not accept our kids losing support, so why should we be content for the children of failed asylum seekers not to receive, at the very least, the basic level of support that we would want and demand? When it comes to children, we should not care where they are from or what their immigration status is—we should just help them when they need our help.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence we received was unanimous on this issue? That was the case right through to the supplementary evidence we received from Lord Green, of Migration Watch UK, who said:

“As regards to the treatment of failed asylum seekers with children, we are clear that they have no right to remain in the UK and should leave but, where children are involved, we believe that the process should take this into account.”

Unless the amendments are accepted, we will not be taking them into account.

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think I referenced Lord Green’s evidence on children in an earlier sitting.

If the clause is left unamended, it will see us punishing children for their parents’ actions. If pursuing the goal of removing all forms of support is intended to cut the costs to the Government, the clause also fails on that account. We have received countless pieces of evidence suggesting that removing all support will see us simply pass the costs from central to local government. That was articulated during an evidence session by Stephen Gabriel, who said:

“if the Home Office stops supporting those families, that will potentially have a negative impact on the local authority. That could be a challenge for the local authority.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 71, Q162.]

Liberty has further made the point that, despite assurances from the Government, it seems inevitable that

“some costs will be transferred to local authorities because the…removal of accommodation and support, from children in particular, risks violations of the Article 3 prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Given all that, and given the strength of feeling evidenced in a number of contributions to the debate, I hope Government Members will give the amendment serious consideration.

[James Brokenshire]

We have obviously had a wide-ranging debate on the amendments. In many respects, it has repeated some of the in-principle issues Opposition Members highlighted in respect of schedule 6. I therefore do not intend to spend a huge amount of time repeating the arguments we debated last week.

Amendment 226 seeks, in essence, to maintain the pre-existing arrangements. Under the current provisions in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, failed asylum seeker families continue to receive Home Office support as though their asylum claim and any appeal had not failed, with the onus on the Home Office to demonstrate non-compliance with return arrangements before support can be ceased. The amendment would maintain that position. We believe that is wrong in principle and would send entirely the wrong message to those who do not require our protection. It would also continue to undermine public confidence in the asylum system.

The current position needs to change. Failed asylum seekers are illegal migrants. Our focus should be on supporting those who have not yet had a decision on their asylum claim and who may need our protection, rather than on those who the courts have agreed do not need our protection and should leave the UK. Instead of indefinitely supporting failed asylum seekers because they have children, we need a better basis of incentives and possible sanctions. We, together with local authorities, can then work with these families in a process that secures their departure from the UK, and schedule 6 to the Bill will deliver that.

Home Office support will, of course, remain available if there is a genuine obstacle to the family leaving the UK. Opposition Members sought again to highlight the 2005 pilot, but I have already indicated the differences between these arrangements and the pre-existing arrangements. We have reflected carefully on those experiences and taken account of them, in order to provide a different approach. If failed asylum seekers decide to remain here unlawfully rather than leaving voluntarily, they should not automatically continue to receive Home Office support simply because they have made a failed asylum claim. We need a better basis of incentives, and we believe the Bill will deliver that.

Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Gavin Newlands

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely. As we heard in evidence from several experts, social cohesion will be affected by such measures.

Clause 19 further extends the powers of those who work at our airports and ports of entry. It will allow them to curtail leave, rather than simply determine whether leave has been given and act accordingly. It will create a nervous, unpleasant environment for those who have the correct paperwork and have gone through the correct process. Due to the new power, they will still have a nervous wait to find out whether they are able to pass through the gates and live and work here. Although this measure may affect only a small number of people, we need to be concerned about the effect that our fears about illegal migration have on people who have the right to live and work here.

Amendment 209, which is supported by Liberty, attempts to limit the speculative searches that are conducted by certain authorities to determine immigration status. As has been detailed and discussed, schedule 2, paragraph 2 of the 1971 Act sets out a power that is ostensibly to deal with individuals on arrival in the UK for the purpose of determining whether they have or should be given leave to enter or remain, but it has been used by the Home Office as justification for conducting speculative, in-country spot checks involving consensual interviews. The amendment would limit that power to examination at the point of entry.

The power to conduct stop-and-searches away from the confines of a point of entry derives from a decades-old case, Singh v. Hammond, when the Court of Appeal concluded that such a search can take place away from the place of entry if there is suspicion that the person is here illegally. That is all well and good, but the power has been somewhat abused. Home Office immigration officers have been conducting intrusive searches when they believe that a person of foreign origin is nervous about being in the presence of an immigration official. Such behaviour is detailed in the “Enforcement instructions and guidance” booklet. Chapter 31, in particular, highlights the need to curtail that sort of behaviour.

In considering the amendment, we should note that there is no free-standing right to stop and search people to establish their immigration status. I know the Government are keen to secure strong social cohesion in our communities, but such intrusive stop-and-searches have no regard for community relations. They should worry us all, and we should take action on them by passing the amendment.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the objectives of amendment 209, as I understand them. They take us back to the intentions of the Conservative Government in 1971, whose Immigration Act 1971 created the opportunity to search to demonstrate immigration status at the point of entry to the country, which seems sensible, but not away from the border. [Interruption.] The Solicitor General is expressing some doubt about that, and I would be happy to pursue the matter with him. The power has been developed gradually by the Home Office, often without sufficient regard for the sort of community relations that we share a concern about.

As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North pointed out, Liberty expressed concern when such speculative street and transport hub-based searches began in 2012, largely outside tube stations. Concern was expressed when what was then the UK Border Agency suspended such operations across the country and reviewed its guidance, but then reinstated them. The guidance was amended again in 2013 following the reaction to street searches.

Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Gavin Newlands

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend has highlighted the paucity of resources in this area, something that we will come back to time and again throughout this debate.

The resources question, raised by amendment 56, was also a cause of concern for Professor Sir David Metcalf, the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee. During our evidence session last Tuesday, Professor Metcalf raised concerns about the resources required to enforce measures and punish rogue employers who are failing to abide by labour market enforcement. After we have gathered evidence on labour market enforcement, we cannot be put in a position where we cannot use that evidence effectively because of a lack of resources. Professor Metcalf stated that, as things stand, he does not believe that the director will have the resources to be able to effectively deal with the problem of worker exploitation.

Professor Metcalf also stated that when working on the implementation and enforcement of the minimum wage he estimated that an employer would get a visit from HMRC once every 250 years and there would be a prosecution once in 1 million years. Quite frankly, that is a ridiculous position for us to find ourselves in, and we cannot allow ourselves to be put in it when it comes to tackling the issue of workers who are being exploited. Amendment 56 would require that the resources required to tackle the problem should be set out and calculated.

As I have said, we broadly support the clause, but clarification is required on a few matters, not least resourcing for the position of director. In our evidence session last week, Professor Metcalf said

“I suspect we just do not have the public finances for sufficient enforcement”

before going on to say that

“in the Bill, it does not actually set out quite what the resources are.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 18-19, Q33-36.]

I hope the Minister will go some way to answering that point today or else will support amendment 56, which would allow the new director the opportunity to assess the required resources.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will speak to a number of the amendments in the group, starting with amendment 14. Following on from our earlier discussion, it is important—