Immigration Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We have done our best to make the Bill slightly more palatable, but even with all our amendments I regret to say that we would still find the damage that the Bill will cause unacceptable. Regardless of what happens today, therefore, we will be voting against Third Reading.

New clause 17, would repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provisions which, like their successor provisions in this Bill, will have limited effect on the Government’s pretend net migration target, but are none the less deemed necessary to make the Government look tough on immigration. As I said on Second Reading, it is in reality immigration theatre—acting out the part of immigration enforcer. But while there is little evidence that it will achieve much in terms of immigration control, its consequences on cohesion could be significant.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about looking tough and effective. Does he not agree that that is the challenge for the Government in the Bill? We want to see immigration measures that are effective, not that just appear to be tough.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree that we need to enforce the immigration rules and laws that we have put in place, but the problem is that the resources and manpower are not being put in to do that. We do not need new powers and rules; we simply need resources to enforce the rules that already exist. I suggest that some of the rules already go far too far.

New clause 16 is a modest response to clause 13, which creates wide powers for immigration officials to close premises for 48 hours before any court involvement is required in certain cases of suspected illegal working. These could have very significant consequences, including for perfectly innocent workers whose place of work is closed for up to two days. Provision for statutory compensation, which our amendment would introduce, is designed to ensure that notices are not issued in an oppressive manner by immigration officials.

New clause 17 is without doubt the more significant of the two new clauses. It would remove the right-to-rent provisions in the 2014 Act. We have signed other amendments in relation to right to rent, starting with the crucial amendment 35, which would remove the criminal sanctions and what we regard as Dickensian eviction processes from the Bill. Amendment 46 is designed to prevent those letting out rooms on essentially a charitable basis from being criminalised. Finally amendments 54 to 57 remove powers for the Secretary of State to legislate by way of regulations for new Scottish right-to-rent provisions, with immense effect on devolved Scottish housing law.

We also support changes proposed by Labour Members such as amendment 22, which seems designed to fix what we can only presume to be a drafting anomaly under which a landlord or landlady would be guilty of an offence for renting to a person with no right to rent, even during the period of 28 days when they could not evict that person. We also fully back their amendments 23 to 26, which would remove the obscene proposals that would see landlords and landladies turned into not only immigration officers but High Court judges, and would see summary evictions without judicial oversight.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will have more—much more—to say on these dreadful and draconian measures if given the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our view is essentially the same as it was on Second Reading. Right to rent is not evidence-based, but in fact flies in the face of the evidence provided by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and indeed parts of the Government’s own pilot review. It is unfair to place these duties and now criminal sanctions on landlords, and it will lead to inadvertent discrimination or racism, with foreign nationals and even British citizens without documents at risk of being rejected from a tenancy whenever there is a safe and easy option of a British passport holder to rent to. It will push more families away from authorities and immigration control, making enforcement harder, not easier.

The one part of the Bill from which something useful might actually emerge is the first few clauses of part 1, and the provisions for a Director of Labour Market Enforcement, which we welcome. It is sad that its presence in an immigration Bill suggests that the new role might be seen as one primarily concerned with enforcing immigration laws, so we have joined our Labour colleagues in supporting amendment 18, which is designed to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation.

More fundamental is amendment 19, which seeks to remove the offence of illegal working. We share the widespread concerns that, like other offences, it will have little effect in terms of immigration control, but will have other significant adverse effects. In this case, the negative consequence is to undermine the decent work that the Government have been doing to tackle slavery and trafficking. The Bill will drive exploited, undocumented workers further underground, and leave them more at risk of exploitation, rather than less.

While on this issue, we know that James Ewins’ report on domestic workers is with the Government but as yet not available to Members. We question why that is the case, and when we will be able to see and debate it in order to inform what should happen with this Bill if it gets a Third Reading.

Finally, in relation to part 1 of the Act, amendment 33 seeks to ensure that employers who innocently and inadvertently employ a person without the right to work are not criminalised by the Bill. It does so by applying a threshold of “knowingly or recklessly” to the offence of employing an adult without permission to work, instead of merely requiring that they have “reasonable cause to believe” that the employee may be such a person. We are concerned that the current test might catch people who are not the intended target.

There are two further sets of amendments in this first grouping that I need to speak to. The first set relates to how a number of these provisions would be implemented in Scotland. Clauses 10, 11 and 16 all include what I am told are referred to as Henry VIII clauses—broad powers to legislate for Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland and in one case Wales. Whereas provisions on licensed premises, private hire vehicles and right to rent are set out in significant detail in schedules to the Bill, and subject to full legislative scrutiny, that is not the case for Scotland. Instead, the Secretary of State is given the sweeping power to legislate in a similar way for Scotland by way of regulation. The power includes the ability to amend Acts of the Scottish Parliament, without any consideration of that Parliament’s view on the matter—and that is despite the fact that liquor licensing, private hire car licensing and housing are all devolved matters.

I understand that Parliament has long been hostile to Henry VIII clauses, and rightly so. These clauses are particularly pernicious for the reasons given, and so should be rejected. That can be done by supporting amendments 47 to 53, which would remove the power to regulate for Scotland in this way, thereby requiring primary legislation and the full scrutiny that that entails. Alternatively, amendment 41 requires that any such regulations would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, again enabling proper scrutiny. That is surely only right and proper in the circumstances.

Finally, on new clause 13 and amendment 32, this House witnessed a powerful Backbench Business debate back in September, led by the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I know will all want, if they can, to speak on the issue again today. On that day there were strong speeches on all sides of the House as it united to tell the Government that immigration detention without a fixed and certain time limit was no longer acceptable. We are the only country in the EU without a time limit so it is inexcusable for this country not to operate one. We on the SNP Benches would prefer that we move straight to a position where immigration bail is granted after 28 days, as set out in amendment 32. Alternatively, we will support new clause 13 to see progress towards that goal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Home Office is undertaking three separate reviews of the process, which makes the new clauses premature while we await the results of much more detailed work.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point about the need for those reviews to inform the debate. Does she share my disappointment that although the reviews have been pending for many months, we in this House do not have that information as we deliberate the amendment before us today?

[Rebecca Harris]

I recognise the frustration of my hon. Friend and others about that, but properly conducted reviews can take time and we have urgent business, which is to deal with many of the measures in the Bill. I feel confident that the Government will deal appropriately with the issue in due course.

In instances where an individual is detained while their case is being investigated, regular reviews can be undertaken to ensure that such detention remains lawful and proportionate. I feel sure that subsequent to the findings of those three reviews, any improvements that can be made will be made by the Government. In addition to this, detention is always a matter for the judiciary. Cases where an individual has been detained are rightly subject to scrutiny and oversight by the courts, which have the power to examine any case as they see fit. The judiciary is clear that factors such as risk to the public and an individual’s immigration history are key in deciding the appropriate timescale for detention. It is correct that judicial authority and experience should be the guiding principle in such cases, and not a random figure imposed by politicians in the Chamber today.

Imposing a maximum time limit of 28 days, for example, is not only arbitrary, but potentially dangerous and irresponsible. Such a limit risks allowing all sorts of individuals to effectively and maliciously subvert the rules. They can refuse to co-operate with the authorities, safe in the knowledge that in doing so they will be released after just four weeks. I need hardly remind the House of the consequences that such a rule would have in the case of someone such as Abu Qatada. This surely cannot be the intention of the House. Placing a time limit on the detention of individuals could be an irresponsible risk to our national security and, especially in the light of recent events around the world, I cannot support the amendments and I urge other Members to oppose them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the values of a time limit is that it provides the detained person with some certainty about what is happening while they are being detained? We heard evidence, and we know from our constituents, that the difficulty is that people are put in detention and do not know what is going to happen to them, with consequential mental health, and other, impacts.

[Keir Starmer]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is the fact of detention in the first place, covering a wide range of individuals detained for different reasons, and then there is its indefinite nature, which adds to the anxiety, because most terms of detention are for a fixed period that allows the individual to know when they may regain their liberty.

As I say, there will be debates about what the precise time limit should be, but sustaining a position of indefinite detention is no longer acceptable in the 21st century. It is not the position in almost all other countries in Europe, and it should not be so in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

On immigration removal centres and detention, I think IRCs play a pivotal role in the arsenal available to this country and to those we charge with managing our borders and our immigration. I must say that the staff working in the centres deserve a huge debt of gratitude. In a previous incarnation, I was fortunate enough to visit quite a few IRCs, including those at Yarl’s Wood and Heathrow. I was struck by the dedication of the staff and not convinced that we can address the issue sensibly—the amendments and new clauses seek to frustrate our doing so—by tearing up the rulebook on IRCs and detention.

[Richard Fuller]

In defending the pivotal role of immigration detention centres, will my hon. Friend defend the detention of pregnant women or the victims of human trafficking, torture or sexual violence? If not, will he support my new clause 8?

[Simon Hoare]

To answer my hon. Friend’s questions in reverse order, no and yes. Whether or not a woman is pregnant is immaterial. The issue is about the environment in which people are detained and the care and attention they are given, rather than about their status. I know the proximity of Yarl’s Wood to my hon. Friend’s constituency—from memory, it is in his constituency—but I would tell him that I heard, both from staff and from those detained, that they had seen people destroy their papers or hide their child under the bed, where they cannot be touched, when an aeroplane was on the tarmac waiting to take off to take them away. In my judgment and experience, which is all I can speak from, the staff approach such problems with huge sensitivity, often in very difficult circumstances.

[Richard Fuller]

I, too, think that the people we ask to manage detention centres do a good job in general. On a point of clarification, my concern arises not from my constituency’s proximity to a detention centre, but from the proximity of the rules to my ethical code. My hon. Friend mentions that the issue is about the care of people in detention centres. Is he aware of the case of PA, a pregnant woman detained in Yarl’s Wood? The Home Office has recently had to admit that she was not given proper antenatal care. Is not the issue that if we detain pregnant women, mistakes will be made, and we therefore need to protect ourselves and our ethics from such mistakes by exempting those people from the rules?

[Simon Hoare]

I do not wish to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, or indeed that of the House, by straying too far, but my hon. Friend has made a valid point. I certainly am aware of that case, but I never think it is right to build a policy on the basis of one incident. Terrible things happen when women are pregnant, whether they are detained or just going about their ordinary business. Medical negligence can happen even to those outside prisons or detention centres. Nasty, upsetting and tragic things happen. He is absolutely right to say that such things should raise questions, and right hon. and hon. Members should continually ensure that those detained can access a range of care that is wide, deep, qualitative and professional. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I do not believe that one isolated incident should force us to say that immigration removal centres and the principle of detention are inherently wrong or unethical. As a practising Christian, I find no difficulty in reconciling good quality care in detention with my faith and ethical basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

To pick up on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), does my hon. Friend agree that, although it may be difficult for the Minister to talk about a limit on detention for any one person, the general principle in immigration of trying to limit and reduce the amount of time that people spend in detention is something different that it is possible to talk to?

[Mr Burrowes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“how to reduce the number of people detained”—

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his. I want to emphasise that that sense of efficiency and effectiveness is absolutely at the heart of the work we are undertaking and of the broad review currently under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) makes some important points about vulnerability, and he knows that Stephen Shaw’s review will focus on that. We will come back to the House soon—before Committee stage in the House of Lords—to respond to the report and to allow, I hope, further detailed examination.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very pleased that the Shaw review will be available for their lordships to review in tabling amendments. I can assure the Minister that, should amendments come to this House to ensure that pregnant women and victims of torture and rape are exempted from our immigration detention estate, I will support those amendments at that time, if the Shaw review has not done a sufficient analysis.

There is no point going over our concerns again that the report has not been available to us in this House—we shall wait on their lordships—but I know that there will be women in Yarl’s Wood detention centre right now who have been victims of torture or rape. We also know that in the last year 100 pregnant women were put into Yarl’s Wood detention centre. This is not one or two cases; it is a significant part of what is happening, and that points to the reason behind new clause 8: the limits on the Minister’s ability to control the action on the ground. The procedures can look perfect on paper, but we know that in practice they are failing and falling down. That is why new clause 8 and the associated amendments aim to restrict the types of people who might fall foul of those processes.

[Byron Davies]

Is this not more about the integrity of the system and how it is supervised, rather than introducing a new clause?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the evidence built up in this Parliament, in case after case after case, is that what the Home Office says is the case is patently not the case, and examples from Yarl’s Wood are front and centre of that. Not only have we had cases where the guards’ procedures in Yarl’s Wood should have been of a certain type and clearly were not—that has besmirched many people who work in immigration and removal centres who do a very good job—but we know that procedures for the provision of care for pregnant women in detention centres are not followed either. My hon. Friend is therefore quite right that there is an issue about procedures, and that is why we are waiting to hear what the Minister is likely to say.

I want to sit down so that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a fellow member of the all-party group on migration, can contribute, but let me say first that I feel—and I hope—that the Minister has been listening to the work of the all-party group and the unanimous view of the House of Commons that change needs to be made along the lines of its recommendations. He has heard some eloquent speeches from the Scottish nationalists, from the Labour Benches and also from the Conservative Benches that reinforce that. I feel, however, that he is one step away from being able to reassure the House. I hope he will take that step—I alluded to that a moment ago. I understand that there are concerns about having time limits for individuals or even a category of people, but that is different from the intent behind the all-party group’s report, which seeks a recognition from the Home Office that the use of detention in immigration is overblown and to hear that he as Minister will seek to limit and reduce the overall amount of time in detention in this country. If we could hear that, hon. Members in all parts of the House would be reassured.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), whose contribution represents the cross-party consensus on this issue, as does the breadth of support from both sides of the House for new clause 13.

I will severely reduce the remarks I was going to make because I am keen that the Minister should have the full opportunity to respond, but I want to underline the breadth of support for engagement in the inquiry—which I was privileged to be vice-chair of and which Sarah Teather led—to which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred. We had Members from all parties and from both Houses, with a depth of experience that was reflected in the involvement of a former Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. We were unanimous, having heard evidence over eight months, that the introduction of a time limit on indefinite detention was overdue. That was reflected, as other Members have said, in the will of this House when we debated the matter on 10 September.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has advanced these issues and underlined the need for us to remain focused on the removal of those who have no lawful authority to be here and to address those who have sought to come into the UK by clandestine means. The most effective way of dealing with those matters is to have an effective removal process, and that is why we are legislating in this way in the Bill. I also want to highlight the work that we discussed in our debate on the previous group of amendments. We are working to achieve a speedier and more efficient and effective use of detention and to determine how that plays into a more effective removal process more generally. The measures are already in place, but my hon. Friend’s points relate fundamentally to our achieving more efficient and effective removal, which is an aim I share.

[Richard Fuller]

May I take my right hon. Friend back to new clause 2, which relates to the deportation of non-British citizens who have committed offences here? I am persuaded by his response to the new clause, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), but will he tell us a little more? I understand that there is a number of countries to which it is extremely difficult for us to deport people in these circumstances. Are moves such as we have seen in relation to Jamaican prisons relevant to this issue, and has any progress been made with those other countries?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of prison conditions is relevant, for example, as are prisoner transfer agreements and the bilateral arrangements that we have in place. Work is being done across Government on the return of foreign national offenders, which I know was a particular issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, not simply in the Home Office, but in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere, to look at these issues in the round and see what measures and mechanisms are available to us to enhance the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was right to frame his point in that way. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate that we are taking a joined-up approach across Government to use the measures that are available to us to enhance our response in respect of returns.

New clause 12 seeks to create a system that requires non-UK nationals, including EU nationals, seeking leave to enter and remain in the UK to obtain legal authority to remain in the UK. I agree with much of the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but new clause 12 essentially seeks to curtail the free movement of EU citizens to the UK under existing treaty rights. I am not sure that legislation is the right way to approach that.

The Immigration Act 2014 limits the factors that draw illegal migrants to the UK and introduces tough domestic reforms to ensure that our controls on access to benefits and services, including the NHS and social housing, are among the tightest in Europe. We believe that the way to bring about real change is through effective renegotiation with the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be well aware of the letter the Prime Minister sent to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, to set out our approach and the broader stance we seek to take.

New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to amend the minimum income threshold requirement for sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any non-EEA national dependent children to settle in the UK. That would undermine the impact of the minimum income threshold, which the courts have agreed correctly reflects the public interest in controlling immigration to safeguard the UK’s economic wellbeing by preventing family migrants from becoming a burden on the taxpayer and by promoting their integration. A couple with income equivalent to the national minimum wage can still access income-related benefits and tax credits. A minimum income threshold set at that level would therefore not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer once the migrant partner reached settlement and had full access to welfare benefits. It would also provide less support for the migrant partner’s integration in society. That is simply not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker, particularly as it was not possible for me to be here for the majority of the Front-Bench speeches. I want to follow on from some of the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), about the passage of the Bill.

To be honest, I am interested not so much in what is in the Bill as in two important things that have been revealed by our discussions. The first is that there exists across Parliament a wish to see fundamental reform of the way in which we manage immigration and detention, and that wish is shared by people of all political views, from those who take a hard line on immigration to those who take a more lenient view. Secondly, there are indications—the early green shoots of spring—that the Home Office recognises the existence of that cross-party consensus. This is a tribute not only to Members of the House but to the all-party group and to Sarah Teather, the former Member for Brent Central, who instigated it. I appreciate being able to put this on record.