01/12/2015

:00:00. > :00:00.two colleagues. Treasury qudstions always bust the box office records.

:00:00. > :00:00.Far more people want to takd part that there is time to accomlodate,

:00:00. > :00:12.so I think colleagues will understand. Order. Statement,

:00:13. > :00:16.business statement, no less, the Leader of the House. Mr Chrhstopher

:00:17. > :00:20.Grayling. Mr Speaker, with xour permission I should like to make a

:00:21. > :00:23.short business statement regarding tomorrow's business. The mahn

:00:24. > :00:29.business for tomorrow will now be a debate on a motion relating Isil in

:00:30. > :00:34.Syria. United Nations Securhty Council resolution to 249. The

:00:35. > :00:37.business for Thursday remains as previously announced, which is the

:00:38. > :00:41.second reading of the charities protection and social investment

:00:42. > :00:46.Bill, Lords. Members will whsh to know that subject to the agreement

:00:47. > :00:49.of the House later today, oral questions to the Cabinet Office and

:00:50. > :00:53.to the Prime Minister will not be taken tomorrow. The oral qudstions

:00:54. > :00:56.will be republished and Cabhnet Office questions will take place on

:00:57. > :00:59.Wednesday the 9th of Decembdr. The results of the ballots for both

:01:00. > :01:04.Question Time 's will be retained, and members will not need to

:01:05. > :01:09.resubmit their questions. I will make my usual business statdment on

:01:10. > :01:14.Thursday. Chris Bryant. Last week, I warmly commended the Prime Linister

:01:15. > :01:20.on the way he had treated the House thus far in relation to Syrha, and I

:01:21. > :01:23.wish I could say the same today The truth is that the government never

:01:24. > :01:27.really intended to proceed tomorrow with the business that was `nnounced

:01:28. > :01:29.last Thursday. They always hntended to make an emergency business

:01:30. > :01:34.statement today to abandon the opposition day tomorrow and to hold

:01:35. > :01:39.the vote tomorrow. The honotrable member for Stratford-upon-Avon, the

:01:40. > :01:44.Prime Minister's apprenticeship adviser, blurted it out in the

:01:45. > :01:47.debate yesterday. Why didn't the Leader of the House just cole clean

:01:48. > :01:52.last Thursday as I suggested? Would it not have been better forl to give

:01:53. > :01:57.MPs proper notice of the debate Would it not be better form for the

:01:58. > :02:00.government to abandon its own business, rather than opposhtion

:02:01. > :02:08.business? Would it not have been better form to have told thd House

:02:09. > :02:12.first? I confess that when H heard yesterday that the Prime Minister

:02:13. > :02:15.was going to make a statement on Syria, I innocently presumed that he

:02:16. > :02:20.was going to make that statdment to the House of Commons. No, I was told

:02:21. > :02:25.by a government whip. He is in Paris, he can't. No, he wasn't. At

:02:26. > :02:29.8pm last night, the Prime Mhnister announced that the debate would be

:02:30. > :02:35.tomorrow not to this House, but on television, and he wasn't in Paris,

:02:36. > :02:42.he was all of 300 yards awax in the Cabinet room in Downing Strdet. The

:02:43. > :02:45.truth is, he should have cole here. The Prime Minister's own thhs list

:02:46. > :02:47.real code says that the most important announcements of

:02:48. > :02:52.government policy must be m`de to the Commons first. So the proper

:02:53. > :02:56.course of action would have been a supplement Rue business paylent at

:02:57. > :03:00.10pm last night. If he couldn't make it, the Leader of the House should

:03:01. > :03:04.have done so and insisted on doing so as a servant of this House and

:03:05. > :03:08.not just as a servant of thd government. There is another

:03:09. > :03:13.problem. I gather the motion has only just been tabled. This means it

:03:14. > :03:17.will not be on the order paper until tomorrow. Yet again, that mdans the

:03:18. > :03:23.House will have to consider manuscript amendments. So on one of

:03:24. > :03:27.the most important issues wd face, the security of our country, the

:03:28. > :03:31.safety of the people of Syrha and of our own Armed Forces, we ard

:03:32. > :03:38.expected to frame our opinion on a motion we haven't even seen yet We

:03:39. > :03:42.ask for a two day debate. I did so two weeks ago and the Leader of the

:03:43. > :03:45.Opposition repeated that cotrt yesterday. I recognise that the

:03:46. > :03:51.government has tabled motions to allow a longer day than usu`l

:03:52. > :03:55.tomorrow, but what is the htrry Last week, 103 members took part in

:03:56. > :04:00.the statement on Syria. Most will want to take part in tomorrow's

:04:01. > :04:04.debate. Many of the 182 new members will also want to lay out their

:04:05. > :04:07.reasons for supporting or not supporting the government on a

:04:08. > :04:11.matter that is highly contested And many will want to press the Prime

:04:12. > :04:15.Minister on some of the clahms he has made around the 70,000 Free

:04:16. > :04:21.Syrian Army troops he says `re standing ready to move into Raqqa.

:04:22. > :04:25.My own position on the substantive motion is on the record. I think we

:04:26. > :04:32.have to degrade and defeat Hsil But I also said last week that the House

:04:33. > :04:36.would not take kindly to behng bounced into the vote. The Prime

:04:37. > :04:40.Minister himself said last week I want us to consider this and think

:04:41. > :04:45.through. I do not want anyone to feel that a good process has not

:04:46. > :04:50.been followed so that if people agree with the case being ptt, they

:04:51. > :04:54.can in all conscience vote to support it. We will all exercise our

:04:55. > :05:00.consciences tomorrow, but this is not a good process. We now have to

:05:01. > :05:03.abandon Cabinet and Prime Mhnister's Questions and an opposition day on

:05:04. > :05:06.mental health and the effect of the Autumn Statement on women. We will

:05:07. > :05:11.consider a motion that will only appear on the order paper on the day

:05:12. > :05:18.we are debating it, and we lay have to consider manuscript amendments.

:05:19. > :05:24.All in all, surely to heavens, this is no way to treat the Housd, our

:05:25. > :05:28.voters or indeed our Armed Forces. Far from inspiring confidence in the

:05:29. > :05:36.government's judgment, shen`nigans of this nature seriously undermine

:05:37. > :05:41.it. I cannot agree with the analysis of the shadow leader. Let's take

:05:42. > :05:48.this in turn. He says the Prime Minister announced today's debate on

:05:49. > :05:51.TV yesterday. The Cabinet dhscussed this matter this morning. L`st

:05:52. > :05:54.night, the Prime Minister s`id he would ask the Cabinet to consider a

:05:55. > :05:59.proposition. The Cabinet discussed this matter this morning, and

:06:00. > :06:03.reached a decision, and therefore brought this matter to the House

:06:04. > :06:07.after the conclusion of that decision. Whilst the honour`ble

:06:08. > :06:13.gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is not trud, I can

:06:14. > :06:16.only say to him again that hn a government that believes in Cabinet

:06:17. > :06:19.government, it is right that a decision of this magnitude should be

:06:20. > :06:24.discussed around the Cabinet table, and that is what took place this

:06:25. > :06:27.morning. He mentioned the moving of the opposition day. I accept the

:06:28. > :06:32.importance of the issue of lental health. We will provide the

:06:33. > :06:34.opposition day at an early opportunity and the opposithon will

:06:35. > :06:39.be able to bring that subject to this House. But I am sure hd would

:06:40. > :06:43.not disagree that the matter is we will debate tomorrow morning of the

:06:44. > :06:48.utmost importance to this country and should be before this House at

:06:49. > :06:54.an early opportunity. He talked about the opportunity for ddbate.

:06:55. > :06:57.Over the past week, we had ` two-hour statement from the Prime

:06:58. > :07:01.Minister last Monday, a 2 one half hour statement from the Prile

:07:02. > :07:05.Minister last Thursday. 78 people spoke at the first, 103 at the

:07:06. > :07:12.second. We have a backbench debate yesterday for five hours, whth 1

:07:13. > :07:16.speeches. Tomorrow's debate is the equivalent two normal days of debate

:07:17. > :07:21.in terms of its length. The idea we are being bounced into the vote when

:07:22. > :07:26.this matter will have been discussed for 20 hours since last Monday, and

:07:27. > :07:31.he talked about the timing of the motion. We have taken care to ensure

:07:32. > :07:35.that in tabling this motion, we have listened to views on all sides of

:07:36. > :07:40.this House. I make no apology for taking time to consider those views

:07:41. > :07:45.and come up with a motion that I believe reflects the views of the

:07:46. > :07:50.majority of members of this House that will, I believe, command the

:07:51. > :07:53.support of this House tomorrow. I am confident that we are not only doing

:07:54. > :07:57.the right thing procedurallx, but also, if we vote that way tomorrow,

:07:58. > :08:03.we will be doing the right thing for this country. Over the weekdnd, the

:08:04. > :08:08.Foreign Secretary said this was an important matter of conscience and

:08:09. > :08:12.he called on the Labour Party to provide a free vote. I take it we

:08:13. > :08:15.will not be having a free vote on this side. I am not going to press

:08:16. > :08:19.the Leader of the House on that because I know the answer whll be

:08:20. > :08:25.no. But he must know that it is not only on those benches that people

:08:26. > :08:27.are agonising about this. There are many Conservative members of

:08:28. > :08:32.Parliament who have serious questions which they want to put

:08:33. > :08:35.tomorrow. And depending on the answers, they will not necessarily

:08:36. > :08:40.vote for this motion. So cotld we not extend the debate? Do wd have to

:08:41. > :08:49.have the boat at seven? Could we not have it at ten? If the answdr is

:08:50. > :08:52.yes, I am happy with that. But also, how will the manuscript mothons be

:08:53. > :08:56.published? Save a backbenchdr like me was to put down a manuscript

:08:57. > :09:03.amendments on how will the manuscript amendments be published

:09:04. > :09:09.and debated? Firstly, the motion is available in the table office now. I

:09:10. > :09:18.would encourage him to look at that. The motion was tabled a few minutes

:09:19. > :09:22.ago and it is available now. We are providing time to go beyond seven

:09:23. > :09:25.o'clock tomorrow to ten o'clock We have sought to provide the

:09:26. > :09:29.equivalent of two days of ddbate. The ten and a half hour bre`k

:09:30. > :09:36.tomorrow is the equivalent of time if we held this debate over a 2 day

:09:37. > :09:42.period. So I hope he will sdnse that we have given an adequate alount of

:09:43. > :09:46.time for this debate. And if he has concerns, this is a matter that is

:09:47. > :09:50.of concern to every member of this House. It is not a decision that is

:09:51. > :09:56.ever taken lightly by any mdmber of Parliament. If he has concerns and

:09:57. > :10:00.wants further information, hf he talks to me and colleagues hn the

:10:01. > :10:01.Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence afterwards, we will be happy

:10:02. > :10:13.to talk further. There will be very few membdrs, if

:10:14. > :10:22.any, he will not be agonising about this boat. Does that lead to

:10:23. > :10:26.recognise that he has a special responsibility as being a mhnister

:10:27. > :10:31.with responsibility to membdrs in this House and it is so difficult I

:10:32. > :10:39.would imagine people outsidd on such a crucial issue, with high dver we

:10:40. > :10:45.vote that we can find that one day, even though it is extended time Why

:10:46. > :10:50.is it impossible for the Hotse of Commons not to at least givd a

:10:51. > :10:54.couple of school days? Therd could be a situation where members are

:10:55. > :11:02.desperate to speak and a good number will not be able to express their

:11:03. > :11:05.view and they... And those that are called in the last stage max be

:11:06. > :11:11.limited to three minutes? It is simply wrong that it should be

:11:12. > :11:17.undertaken in this way on stch a crucial issue of war and pe`ce. I

:11:18. > :11:21.expect that the honourable gentleman is right to say it is a crucial

:11:22. > :11:25.issue of conscience for manx people house. The timing of the debate

:11:26. > :11:29.tomorrow is effectively the equivalent of the time that would

:11:30. > :11:32.have been available if we hdld the debate across web and see Thursday

:11:33. > :11:38.in normal business days and the size. It provides it in one extended

:11:39. > :11:43.day. I think it makes for a more coherent debate. Starting e`rlier

:11:44. > :11:46.than normal, finishing much later than normal and I hope it whll give

:11:47. > :11:57.all members to give an opportunity for them to contribute. All votes in

:11:58. > :12:01.the House of Commons are frde and members will make up their own

:12:02. > :12:09.minds. I don't think a single member will vote the way the whips will

:12:10. > :12:12.tell them on this issue. Thd shadow leader has a point about thd

:12:13. > :12:19.motion. We haven't seen it so how can we say" for or against that It

:12:20. > :12:27.is a shame we are doing so ,- doing the votes or close to the motion

:12:28. > :12:32.being published. We can compromise between the position of the leader

:12:33. > :12:35.and the honourable member's position by having at over two days, by

:12:36. > :12:41.having a tomorrow but not pttting on the time limits. If we voted through

:12:42. > :12:44.in the morning, so be it. Pdople out there will realise we are t`king it

:12:45. > :12:53.seriously. Would he consider that point again? In terms of thd motion

:12:54. > :12:58.can I simply said to him ag`in that we have taken the time to consult

:12:59. > :13:02.members on all sides of the size to try to make sure that we have a

:13:03. > :13:06.motion to vote upon tomorrow that reflects the concerns that lembers

:13:07. > :13:11.have raised. If we have dond so and taken the time to deliver the right

:13:12. > :13:19.motion I make no apologies for that. In terms of the debate time tomorrow

:13:20. > :13:25.I think 10.5 hours is a sufficient time to get the decision taken, to

:13:26. > :13:29.get the vote done and if thd decision of this country is to do

:13:30. > :13:44.what the government will recommend and to give, ... They should give

:13:45. > :13:48.the Armed Forces or support. We have been profoundly disappointed in the

:13:49. > :13:53.way the government has addrdssed this business tomorrow. It would

:13:54. > :13:56.have been so eager -- so easy for the Leader of the House to say that

:13:57. > :14:06.this debate would have happdned today, to give us the opportunity to

:14:07. > :14:11.put improper amendments. Thhs is the country going to war and having air

:14:12. > :14:14.strikes in another country. It is really important that we ard given

:14:15. > :14:19.the chance to consider this properly. I have a copy of the

:14:20. > :14:25.motion that has just been presented to the house. It is not even

:14:26. > :14:28.available to members to havd a proper look yet! This means there

:14:29. > :14:39.will be no opportunity to h`ve amendments, there will only be

:14:40. > :14:42.manuscript amendments. We c`n't even properly considered this. I know

:14:43. > :14:48.there are a number of members wanting to bring forward seriously

:14:49. > :14:51.considered amendments to thhs motion and they will only have the

:14:52. > :14:54.opportunity to do that in manuscript. It is so disappointing

:14:55. > :14:59.once again that we haven't got these two days to discuss this properly,

:15:00. > :15:06.two days that we have been `sking two weeks. We are trying to shoehorn

:15:07. > :15:08.two days into one day. We are abandoning Prime Minister's

:15:09. > :15:17.Questions in order to do thhs. Please reconsider this. On the order

:15:18. > :15:27.paper it says Isil. It has nothing to do with Islam, it is Daesh.

:15:28. > :15:31.Lastly, in the Scottish Nathonal Party will be an effective

:15:32. > :15:34.opposition to what the government is proposing tomorrow and as stch would

:15:35. > :15:41.he make sure that he will kdep us up to date and informed of any

:15:42. > :15:44.developments in the next 24 hours? First of all can I just set out

:15:45. > :15:50.quite clearly what the government is proposing that we do. I must take up

:15:51. > :15:54.on his point about going to war Britain has been carrying ott with a

:15:55. > :15:58.mandate from the size air strikes on Iraq for a considerable perhod of

:15:59. > :16:03.time. This motion is simply allows us to extend our work, seekhng to

:16:04. > :16:10.degrade Isil to the areas in Syria that they are operating in. The

:16:11. > :16:14.tabling of the motion took place after the opening of business today

:16:15. > :16:18.in the normal way in the table office. At the place today because

:16:19. > :16:22.we have taken the time to consult members, to listen to concerns on

:16:23. > :16:27.different sides of the housd and to make sure that we reflected in the

:16:28. > :16:33.final motion concerns raised by members. He said why didn't I come

:16:34. > :16:37.to the host last Thursday, because simply no decision had been taken

:16:38. > :16:43.last Thursday. No decision was taken until the Cabinet met this lorning.

:16:44. > :16:47.About the time allocated, wd have allocated on one day rather than to

:16:48. > :16:51.the equivalent of time that would have been available if he wdre to

:16:52. > :16:54.operate a normal day on Wednesday or Thursday. In my view it cre`tes a

:16:55. > :17:02.more single strap tripled the debate. My right honourable friend

:17:03. > :17:05.has now said twice that the motion was tabled today in the ordhnary way

:17:06. > :17:10.but it is true to say that ` few minutes ago the right honourable

:17:11. > :17:21.gentleman said a few minutes ago that it was not available. @n image

:17:22. > :17:26.has been sent a few minutes ago of the motion. At one time was this

:17:27. > :17:29.motion tabled and might it not have been better if the right honourable

:17:30. > :17:36.gentleman opposite had been provided with a copy of the motion bdfore the

:17:37. > :17:41.statement began? Can I simply save the motion that we tabled this

:17:42. > :17:45.morning was tabled in the t`ble office shortly before middax and

:17:46. > :17:56.that it is currently available for members in the table office. It is

:17:57. > :18:01.currently available to membdrs. Clearly there will be a lot of

:18:02. > :18:08.members on all sides who will want to participate in the debatd. It

:18:09. > :18:12.would be a travesty of people are limited to very short speeches of

:18:13. > :18:17.three or four minutes. Can they make an appeal to the leader and across

:18:18. > :18:23.the house that the front bench speeches not take up an inordinately

:18:24. > :18:27.long time, sometimes they do? Especially given the fact that the

:18:28. > :18:34.front bench speech on the opposition side will actually be an expression

:18:35. > :18:41.of personal views? We may hdar two different sets of use coming from

:18:42. > :18:45.those benches. He makes a sdnsible point and it is something on our

:18:46. > :18:49.side I will communicate. I do want people to have the opportunhty to

:18:50. > :18:56.contribute. Many will seek to do so through interventions, but ht will

:18:57. > :19:00.make a point to the Prime Mhnister. Is he aware that we had a long

:19:01. > :19:04.considered to be had on the Middle East yesterday when many melbers

:19:05. > :19:07.across the house were able to make strong contributions on the issues

:19:08. > :19:14.in Syria must remark it was not very well attended a certain part of the

:19:15. > :19:19.opposition benches. He makes some important points. As it did say

:19:20. > :19:25.earlier, we will have considered these matters by the end of tomorrow

:19:26. > :19:29.for 20 hours since Monday of last week. I don't think anybody looking

:19:30. > :19:34.at this House from the outshde can say that these issues have not been

:19:35. > :19:38.raised or discussed. The Prhme Minister to questions for 4.5

:19:39. > :19:48.hours, as well as the contrhbution he will make tomorrow. The Leader of

:19:49. > :19:52.the House rules at 12:35pm today and as was mentioned by the member from

:19:53. > :19:58.Whickham the editor of politics home had been briefed and issued the

:19:59. > :20:02.motion on Twitter at 12:33pl. Whatever the rights and wrongs of

:20:03. > :20:06.the process, does that just not sure that the house has not been given

:20:07. > :20:09.the full opportunity to look at this matter in detail and that mx

:20:10. > :20:15.honourable friend should have had sight of the motion before he came

:20:16. > :20:19.to the house today? No, I don't accept that. I made a point of

:20:20. > :20:24.ensuring that no public statement was made by the government, that no

:20:25. > :20:28.provision was made of the motion to the media before it had been tabled

:20:29. > :20:33.in the sights and I think that is the right and proper thing to do.

:20:34. > :20:38.Will the leader of the housds set that I managed to get hold of a copy

:20:39. > :20:42.of the motion without any dhfficulty and if it is possible to do that

:20:43. > :20:48.this easily add to be possible for others, including shadow le`der The

:20:49. > :20:53.versatility demonstrated by me honourable friend suggest pdrhaps

:20:54. > :21:00.the people in this side in government and those on the other

:21:01. > :21:03.side are not. The Leader of the House needs to think again `bout

:21:04. > :21:08.this issue. Winning issues the debate on War and peace to the house

:21:09. > :21:13.is a relatively recent innovation. Here's a situation where thd Leader

:21:14. > :21:16.of the Opposition, the leaddr of the second largest opposition p`rty and

:21:17. > :21:20.I suspect other parties havd asked for a two-day debate. The two-day

:21:21. > :21:26.debate is just not about thd amount of time for debate at the alount of

:21:27. > :21:30.time available for thinking about the motions. He is creating a

:21:31. > :21:34.dangerous precedent and an unfortunate one. Is it becatse the

:21:35. > :21:38.Prime Minister is more interested in dividing the Labour Party than

:21:39. > :21:41.uniting the country or is there are some specific reason why thd Prime

:21:42. > :21:49.Minister does not want to bd on the house on Thursday? Will he `nswered

:21:50. > :21:53.that? I know of no specific reason why the Prime Minister would not

:21:54. > :21:58.wish to be in the house on Thursday. I have sat through a number of

:21:59. > :22:02.debates sadly over my 15 ye`rs as a member of Parliament on isstes like

:22:03. > :22:06.this. I believe that the length of time we are providing for the debate

:22:07. > :22:11.is more generous than was the case the last time these matters were

:22:12. > :22:16.debated. We have sought to create a single coherent debate started by

:22:17. > :22:22.the Prime Minister, finished by the Foreign Secretary over an extended

:22:23. > :22:25.period equivalent to the amount of time available if we had done it

:22:26. > :22:27.over whether the Thursday on an enormous business days. I think we

:22:28. > :22:32.are providing an appropriatd amount of time for the debate. Can I

:22:33. > :22:37.congratulate him on the front bench on the motion which I had no

:22:38. > :22:41.difficulty in getting a copx of a few moments ago. On the subject of

:22:42. > :22:50.the allocation of time does he recall the events of 2003 and having

:22:51. > :22:54.a similar debate about the time available for a matter of t`ste it

:22:55. > :22:59.was of -- far greater significance because that was actually m`king war

:23:00. > :23:08.whereas this is extending the action we are currently undertaking in Iraq

:23:09. > :23:12.to Syria. He is absolutely right, I remember that occasion as wdll. The

:23:13. > :23:15.point I would also make tod`y is that both the Prime Minister, my

:23:16. > :23:19.colleagues in government and officials have gone out of their way

:23:20. > :23:24.in the last few days to provide briefings to have discussions, to

:23:25. > :23:26.listen to views raised and to try to come up with the motion that

:23:27. > :23:31.reflects the concerns they have raised. I said at the start, the

:23:32. > :23:35.reason why we are publishing the motion today are not least because

:23:36. > :23:39.we have just taken the decision we have tried to take the time to

:23:40. > :23:43.listen to those concerns and have a motion which encompasses thd words

:23:44. > :23:48.that have been raised on different sides of this House, to set out a

:23:49. > :23:52.strategy that encompasses not just military action but developlent

:23:53. > :23:58.political solutions and the rest. We are trying to do the right thing in

:23:59. > :24:01.a holistic way. The debate last night in the house was on the UK

:24:02. > :24:05.role in the Middle East and included length the contributions on

:24:06. > :24:10.countries such as the Yemen, Israel and Palestine and Iran. I think it

:24:11. > :24:13.is not fair to say that that was it is not fair to say that that was a

:24:14. > :24:16.debate where members were able to talk at length the mass questions

:24:17. > :24:23.about the issue around extending the bombing of Isil. I listen to the

:24:24. > :24:26.whole of that debate and thd honourable member from

:24:27. > :24:31.Stratford-upon-Avon referred the debate that with take place on

:24:32. > :24:34.Wednesday. I would say to the leaders to really listen to what

:24:35. > :24:39.members from all sides of the house are saying, as they did in the

:24:40. > :24:42.debate last night, about thd opportunity to express their views

:24:43. > :24:46.as questions and to speak and debate. I didn't understand why the

:24:47. > :24:51.government has set its face against the two-day debate. This is not

:24:52. > :24:54.normal business and Bjork to have the opportunity to take as long as

:24:55. > :25:00.we require to reach the right decision. Yesterday's debatd focused

:25:01. > :25:06.on more than the situation hn Syria but one of the reasons we nded to

:25:07. > :25:09.act against Isil in Syria is because of the growing challenge th`t we

:25:10. > :25:14.face from run the Middle East and North Africa and those issuds would

:25:15. > :25:18.reflect that in the debate yesterday. On the two-day ddbate

:25:19. > :25:20.issues are simply go back and say we are providing an extended ddbate

:25:21. > :25:24.that is the equivalent of the amount of time that would have been

:25:25. > :25:28.available on a normal day of business on Wednesday and Thursday

:25:29. > :25:36.but we are doing it over ond day in an extended period.

:25:37. > :25:42.If the government genuinely wants to build as broad a consensus `s

:25:43. > :25:48.possible over what might be the most momentous decision of this

:25:49. > :25:52.Parliament, how other public supposed to understand a

:25:53. > :25:58.time-limited debate on a spdcific motion to escalate bombing, were

:25:59. > :26:03.fewer than a fifth of members are able to take part? I would be saying

:26:04. > :26:09.to the public that we in Parliament will have discussed this issue over

:26:10. > :26:13.a 20 hour period since last Monday. The Prime Minister has taken two

:26:14. > :26:17.sets of questions and has considered carefully the issues raised by

:26:18. > :26:21.members on both sides of thd House, has produced a motion that hn our

:26:22. > :26:25.view reflects those concerns and takes them into account and has then

:26:26. > :26:28.provided a length of time for debate that is longer than any that has

:26:29. > :26:32.been provided for a similar decision in recent years. I think th`t is

:26:33. > :26:43.treating this House and the public in the right way. We certainly don't

:26:44. > :26:47.have any agreement on the whsdom of bombing Syria, and now we don't have

:26:48. > :26:51.a agreement on the process that that should be arrived at through

:26:52. > :26:54.Parliament. This is because the government is bouncing Parlhament.

:26:55. > :26:58.Why is it doing that? We he`rd from my colleagues that the motion has

:26:59. > :27:04.not been published properly, but the press have it. It speaks ag`in of

:27:05. > :27:12.the Blair spin times, going to war. Ten nations are already bombing

:27:13. > :27:15.Syria. What impact will the UK make? Prime Minister's Questions has been

:27:16. > :27:21.abandoned. Why is the government doing it wrongly? Why don't we get

:27:22. > :27:26.this part of the process right? I don't think we can accused of

:27:27. > :27:30.bouncing anyone into a decision after 20 hours of debate ovdr a

:27:31. > :27:35.nine-day period. We tabled ` motion this morning, before it went to

:27:36. > :27:40.anybody in the media. It cale to this House first after an extensive

:27:41. > :27:44.period of discussion with mdmbers on all sides to try to make sure the

:27:45. > :27:50.motion we put forward reflected concerns raised by members `cross

:27:51. > :27:54.this House. I accept that there will not be consensus across the whole

:27:55. > :27:58.House. But it is in our nathonal interest that we sit to bring

:27:59. > :28:06.forward a motion that can command as much support as possible from across

:28:07. > :28:10.this House. The Leader of the House's position seems to bd that as

:28:11. > :28:14.his government has spent sole time considering their motion, it doesn't

:28:15. > :28:19.matter that MPs will have so little time to do consider it. But what

:28:20. > :28:23.about amendments? I will not be voting for air strikes, but there

:28:24. > :28:31.are many things I would likd to vote for, like building a comprehensive

:28:32. > :28:37.UN consensus, or cutting off Daesh's all supplies. How are we

:28:38. > :28:42.supposed to vote for an altdrnative approach if amendments are only

:28:43. > :28:48.available on the day itself? Those elements of her concern are already

:28:49. > :28:54.reflected in the motion. We have sought to reflect concerns on all

:28:55. > :28:59.sides of this house. I can only reiterate, this motion was tabled

:29:00. > :29:07.today and members of this House can access it, as my honourable friend

:29:08. > :29:13.is behind me have managed to do so. This appears to be a real shambles

:29:14. > :29:17.developing here. The Leader of the House as we have 20 hours to debate,

:29:18. > :29:21.but that is not correct. We are being given ten hours to debate a

:29:22. > :29:27.motion that this House needs to reflect on and put down amendments.

:29:28. > :29:30.Is it not the case that our constituents are very concerned

:29:31. > :29:34.about the consequences of this motion? Surely we should be having

:29:35. > :29:38.two days for debate so that members can properly debate this. Why

:29:39. > :29:42.doesn't he called the Prime Minister back from what engagements he may

:29:43. > :29:46.have on Thursday, and let's do this properly treat the country with

:29:47. > :29:51.respect? I can only say agahn, we discussed this matter for two hours

:29:52. > :29:56.asked Thursday, five hours plus yesterday, and we have a ten and we

:29:57. > :29:59.have a ten the debate tomorrow is the equivalent time to the time that

:30:00. > :30:04.would have been available, had we run normal days on Wednesdax and

:30:05. > :30:09.Thursday. I think it is mord coherent for us to do this hn one

:30:10. > :30:14.go, with one debate, wound tp by the Foreign Secretary. We will have in

:30:15. > :30:23.total 20 hours to consider these matters since Monday last wdek.

:30:24. > :30:28.Point of order, Alistair McGovern -- Alison McGovern. I am not in the

:30:29. > :30:32.habit of raising needless points of order, but we have had many members

:30:33. > :30:35.raise their concerns, and what seems clear about the motion for tomorrow

:30:36. > :30:41.is that it was in the hands of the journalists before it was in our

:30:42. > :30:44.hands, as the Prime Minister made his statement to the BBC rather than

:30:45. > :30:49.to this House last night. Wd have heard what the Leader of thd House

:30:50. > :30:55.has to say. I would like yotr view, Mr Speaker, on what reform we can

:30:56. > :31:01.bring to change that approach. I am not sure that this is an occasion

:31:02. > :31:06.for pronouncing on a reform to the process, as she puts it. It is

:31:07. > :31:12.difficult for the chair to give a ruling without certain knowledge of

:31:13. > :31:16.the facts stop what I would say at this stage is this. I would welcome

:31:17. > :31:22.any clarification that the Leader of the House can provide. The first

:31:23. > :31:27.point is that as I understand it, it is the government's firm intention

:31:28. > :31:34.to ensure that the text of the motion is widely available today.

:31:35. > :31:41.Members can apparently constlt it, I cannot say this for certain, now in

:31:42. > :31:44.the table office. There are nods from the Chief Whip and the Leader

:31:45. > :31:55.of the House. Order! I am trying to help the House. If that is so, that

:31:56. > :32:00.is welcome. On the subject of amendments, if amendments are tabled

:32:01. > :32:04.today, presumably by people who have seen the text of the motion, those

:32:05. > :32:11.amendments will be on the order paper tomorrow. Therefore, they will

:32:12. > :32:16.not be manuscript amendments. However, it is within the dhscretion

:32:17. > :32:19.of the chair to consider manuscript amendments. Colleagues who have been

:32:20. > :32:24.in this House for any length of time will know that this speaker has

:32:25. > :32:29.regularly done so and if necessary, I will be ready to do so ag`in. It

:32:30. > :32:34.is obviously desirable, not least in the light of what the Leader of the

:32:35. > :32:37.House said about having unddrtaken widespread consultation with a view

:32:38. > :32:46.to try to put together a motion that can command widespread agredment,

:32:47. > :32:55.that the motion itself, when decided upon and its text finalised, should

:32:56. > :32:58.have been formally given, at the very least, to the official

:32:59. > :33:11.opposition. I assume that that was done. Order. I think it would be

:33:12. > :33:16.desirable for that to be done, and it would be consistent with the

:33:17. > :33:19.words that the Leader of thd House uttered about widespread

:33:20. > :33:25.consultation. So if it hasn't happened, I think it would be no

:33:26. > :33:33.desirable for it to happen. Beyond that, the Leader of the House made

:33:34. > :33:39.the point that the one-day debate, stretching over ten and a h`lf

:33:40. > :33:44.hours, would represent a tile allocation broadly equivalent to two

:33:45. > :33:48.days of full debate on the Wednesday and Thursday. I know some pdople

:33:49. > :33:51.like to be very precise abott these matters. My mental arithmethc tells

:33:52. > :33:55.me that if you have a full day's debate on a Wednesday, and ` full

:33:56. > :33:59.day's debate on a Thursday, bearing in mind that we have business

:34:00. > :34:04.questions on a Thursday, th`t would amount to an allocation of time of

:34:05. > :34:08.12 hours. Ten and a half is being allocated. If it were a Monday and

:34:09. > :34:12.Tuesday and there were two full days of debate without interrupthon by

:34:13. > :34:16.urgent questions or statements, that would amount to 13 hours of debate.

:34:17. > :34:21.So to be absolutely correct about this, it is not two full daxs of

:34:22. > :34:26.debate in one. But it is considerably more and one and one

:34:27. > :34:29.and a half, and it is perfectly reasonable this is a political point

:34:30. > :34:33.for the leader to make, but it is reasonable for the right honourable

:34:34. > :34:38.gentleman to save the time allocation is somewhat greater than

:34:39. > :34:41.has been the case in the past. I'm trying to be fair-minded about this.

:34:42. > :34:46.I respect what the Leader of the House has dared, and there was

:34:47. > :34:51.considerable agreement with what he has said. I recognise that there is

:34:52. > :34:55.some unhappiness, and I think the best thing at this stage more on

:34:56. > :35:03.matters of some procedure, `nd we have the rest of the day av`ilable,

:35:04. > :35:05.is to try to maximise buy into the procedure and to minimise dhssent.

:35:06. > :35:11.If I look at it from the vantage point of members of the reptblic,

:35:12. > :35:16.that is what responsible melbers of the public would expect responsible

:35:17. > :35:22.members of Parliament to do. I hope that is helpful. I will pick a point

:35:23. > :35:25.of order. You have been extremely reasonable, Mr Speaker. We have to

:35:26. > :35:30.look at it from the point of view of members of the public. I know you

:35:31. > :35:35.have no ability to extend B`tes but say by seven this evening 100 people

:35:36. > :35:41.have put in to speak, perhaps discussions could take placd in your

:35:42. > :35:44.office. There is no reason why the government should not extend this

:35:45. > :35:50.debate until 11.30 tomorrow, which would unable another 30 people to

:35:51. > :35:54.get in. We could look at thhs in a holistic and creative way. The

:35:55. > :36:04.honourable gentleman is ever helpful. And that is apprechated. I

:36:05. > :36:08.don't think it is a matter for my office to engage or collaborate with

:36:09. > :36:14.the government on the subject of the allocation of time. That is

:36:15. > :36:21.something for the government to come to a view about and Parliamdnt

:36:22. > :36:23.either to agree to or not. However, I heard what the honourable

:36:24. > :36:30.gentleman said about the likely level of interest in contributing.

:36:31. > :36:38.And I can say that my door hs always open, and that of the outer office

:36:39. > :36:42.is always open. There is no secret about the numbers of people putting

:36:43. > :36:46.in to speak, and of course, as colleagues will know, the Ldader of

:36:47. > :36:50.the House and I speak regul`rly and the government Chief Whip and I

:36:51. > :36:55.speak regularly, as is true of the shadow leader and the opposhtion

:36:56. > :36:59.Chief Whip. I am happy to kdep them informed, and any member who asks me

:37:00. > :37:07.how many people have put in to speak, needless to say, the shadow

:37:08. > :37:11.leader of the house said thd Leader was a servant of the house. I am a

:37:12. > :37:20.servant of the House. I intdnd to be in the chair tomorrow very fully to

:37:21. > :37:25.chair the debate. I would bd happy, if the House will do it, to sit up

:37:26. > :37:29.all night in the chair to hdar colleagues. It is a pleasurd, and

:37:30. > :37:33.it's my responsibility. But how much time is allocated is not a latter

:37:34. > :37:37.for me. I think the Leader will have heard that there are some interest

:37:38. > :37:41.in having the maximum possible time allocated for this important

:37:42. > :37:48.purpose. Point of order, Mr Peter Bone. Thank you. Item six on the

:37:49. > :37:51.order paper today is on the sittings of the house for the 2nd of

:37:52. > :37:55.December, in which we can t`lk all through the night if necess`ry to

:37:56. > :38:00.reach a conclusion. What I cannot find on the order paper is the

:38:01. > :38:03.extension of the moment of interruption, which has been

:38:04. > :38:12.referred to and almost assuled to be 10pm tomorrow night. I assule the

:38:13. > :38:20.Leader of the House will brhng a motion tomorrow morning of when the

:38:21. > :38:23.moment of interruption will occur. If that is a process, the Ldader of

:38:24. > :38:28.the hasn't has until tomorrow morning to make up his mind whether

:38:29. > :38:32.it is till ten or 11:30 p.m., or whether the motion has to bd late

:38:33. > :38:38.tonight. If it is tonight, could you advise how it is to be amendables

:38:39. > :38:45.the short answer is that it does have to be tabled by close of

:38:46. > :38:55.business tonight. And yes, that motion will be amendable. I will

:38:56. > :39:05.take the honourable gentlem`n, if I may. Firstly, the SNP is already

:39:06. > :39:12.tabling an amendment to the motion. Can I ask you about two points? Has

:39:13. > :39:15.this happened before that Prime Minister's Questions has bedn

:39:16. > :39:19.cancelled at such short nothce? Secondly, does such a step need the

:39:20. > :39:24.consent of the House? I missed the second point. Secondly, does such a

:39:25. > :39:36.step of cancelling Prime Minister's Questions need the consent of the

:39:37. > :39:48.house? The short answer to the honourable member is that yds, such

:39:49. > :39:54.a proposition from the government, of course requires the assent of the

:39:55. > :40:00.House. And motion number six is before the House. And when the

:40:01. > :40:05.honourable gentleman asks md, has this happened before, the honourable

:40:06. > :40:08.gentleman is an experienced denizen of this House and he would know that

:40:09. > :40:12.there are precedents for most things. The short answer is yes

:40:13. > :40:29.Prime Minister's Questions has been cancelled, relatively recently, in

:40:30. > :40:33.fact. I think it related to marking the unsurpassed tenure of Hdr

:40:34. > :40:36.Majesty The Queen. That was the occasion most recently. There are

:40:37. > :40:53.precedents for these things. Many members have been asking me

:40:54. > :40:59.what manuscript amendments `re. It means you would be open to `nimals

:41:00. > :41:03.that are not tabled until tomorrow morning. There has been somd

:41:04. > :41:07.confusion about the confusion between the table office and the

:41:08. > :41:13.vote office. It is quite right that the motion has been available since

:41:14. > :41:18.the moment the government offered it in the vote office, but not the

:41:19. > :41:24.table office. Do grow up. Would it not on this occasion be a good idea

:41:25. > :41:30.for this to be made, to be published formally so it is available for all

:41:31. > :41:34.members of the house in both the vote on the table office. I think it

:41:35. > :41:40.would be better if it is av`ilable in both. The motion has been

:41:41. > :41:48.available in the vote officd since 12:56 p.m.. We are where we are I

:41:49. > :41:52.thank the Leader of the House for what he has said and his telp two

:41:53. > :41:58.provide clarification here `nd there. It is so much better if we

:41:59. > :42:01.can proceed in a consensual manner on matters of procedure. We

:42:02. > :42:07.acknowledge the existence of differences of opinion on the

:42:08. > :42:14.substance, they will exist right across the country, but we lust do

:42:15. > :42:18.our business in an efficient, orderly and consensual way, in terms

:42:19. > :42:24.of procedure. I think the point is made and it should not need to be

:42:25. > :42:27.revisited. On a different point I wish to bring to the attenthon of

:42:28. > :42:32.the house and secure guidance about what happened in the House of Lords

:42:33. > :42:36.last night. Due to the disgraceful way in which the Department of

:42:37. > :42:42.business, innovation and skhlls have backed -- backtracked on thd clear

:42:43. > :42:49.commitment to this House toppled the will of the size and to introduce

:42:50. > :42:53.the market rents only option for licensees, they took the

:42:54. > :42:59.unprecedented step of introducing this serum concept into a sdcond

:43:00. > :43:05.bill which is unprecedented. There is confusion about what one I

:43:06. > :43:09.happen. How do we now procedd from a legislative point of view and how we

:43:10. > :43:14.bring the ministers to this House to explain that they will actu`lly

:43:15. > :43:20.respect the will of the house and do what they agreed to do at the

:43:21. > :43:27.dispatch box? The short answer is twofold. I have no advance notice of

:43:28. > :43:30.it, I am simply saying that it makes it difficult for me to give any

:43:31. > :43:41.authoritative verdict from the chair at this time. Secondly, I would say

:43:42. > :43:48.to the honourable gentleman that he is as dog with a terrier is any

:43:49. > :43:54.backbench member of the sitds, and I hope he takes that in the positive

:43:55. > :44:01.way in which was intended. Xou will not let go of this topic. I think

:44:02. > :44:05.that he will return to the hssue. I don't know whether the government

:44:06. > :44:10.has any plan to come to the house to explain its thinking or how it

:44:11. > :44:14.believes its conduct night hs compatible with what was prdviously

:44:15. > :44:18.said. I know were the honourable gentleman sits and I know hd see the

:44:19. > :44:23.catch my eye and I am always happy to try to facilitate him

:44:24. > :44:32.interrogating the government on this and indeed on other matters. I hope

:44:33. > :44:35.he will hold the sources for now. If he wants to have another

:44:36. > :44:43.conversation with me when I am more in the loop I am happy to assist.

:44:44. > :44:52.Perhaps we can now move to the ten minute rule motion. I beg to move

:44:53. > :44:57.that he'd be given to bring in a bill to make provision about the

:44:58. > :45:00.standards of fire resistancd and relevant labelling requiremdnts in

:45:01. > :45:05.relation to children's fancx dress and play costumes and for connected

:45:06. > :45:08.purposes. The last 20 years has seen a huge evolution in the way that

:45:09. > :45:12.children play and dress up `nd we need legislation to catch up. When I

:45:13. > :45:20.was a child dressing up meant trading a box containing mul's

:45:21. > :45:26.called clothes. What my ear could suffer from was dangerous flammable

:45:27. > :45:32.nightwear. Every year up until 964 small children were sent to hospital

:45:33. > :45:36.with horrific urns and many died. In 1960 for the Daily Mail led a

:45:37. > :45:44.campaign about nightwear and the size decided to act. The laws can't

:45:45. > :45:51.-- updated in 1985. A professor from Bolton University said we h`ve over

:45:52. > :45:54.50 years experience which the fire statistics show that by injtries to

:45:55. > :46:01.children are now in low single figures per annum, sometimes zero.

:46:02. > :46:08.Despite that fantastic prodtction in the injuries it took the EU until

:46:09. > :46:11.2007 choose to adopt a simple - a similar nightwear standard. A whole

:46:12. > :46:16.new multi-billion pound indtstry has grown up since then. These dress

:46:17. > :46:19.costumes are classed as toys by the European Union and because of that

:46:20. > :46:24.our children are less protect than if they were wearing nightwdar. The

:46:25. > :46:27.chief fire officer for Beds observed in his briefing to me that dressing

:46:28. > :46:32.up clothes are not always worn just for play but appear increashngly to

:46:33. > :46:38.be worn as nightwear or norlal clothes. The use of naked flames is

:46:39. > :46:42.more prevalent, particularlx candles, at events such as

:46:43. > :46:45.Christmas, Halloween, barbecues acceptor. Those are tested `gainst a

:46:46. > :46:50.rate of spread of flame which is based on the ability of a child to

:46:51. > :46:54.run away from a burning toy. In his watchdog interview, the chidf fire

:46:55. > :47:00.officer for Beds also said that these toys they can drop walk away

:47:01. > :47:06.from. The test be the same `t least the same as the test board nightwear

:47:07. > :47:12.for children. In the United States a child's dresser garment has a higher

:47:13. > :47:15.level of protection. It must not catch fire until at least three and

:47:16. > :47:20.a half seconds after exposure to a naked flame. Dress costumes in

:47:21. > :47:24.Europe and the UK are tested against a toy direct of which only offers

:47:25. > :47:29.protections of a burning rate of three centimetres per second and

:47:30. > :47:35.that is enormously fast on ` small child. Yet if the same child was

:47:36. > :47:42.wearing a nightdress in the UK with the standard, then the rate allowed

:47:43. > :47:44.would be three centimetres hnto two and a half seconds and that maybe

:47:45. > :47:51.the difference between life and death. It is hard to keep slall

:47:52. > :47:55.children away from fire haz`rds as a consultant in a District Hospital

:47:56. > :47:58.said, the brands that you gdt from flames are often full thickness

:47:59. > :48:02.which means that you need to have skin grafting and they can be life

:48:03. > :48:07.changing. The British Retail Consortium tour without we to

:48:08. > :48:11.believe the flammability tests ES 712 is no longer fit for purpose.

:48:12. > :48:17.Since this test was introduced in 1979 the design has got mord

:48:18. > :48:24.complicated as has their popularity. The test is not kept pace whth the

:48:25. > :48:27.outfit designs and no longer affect of the assessors or wrists. We are

:48:28. > :48:31.failing our children with ET toy safety standards that are not

:48:32. > :48:36.considered fit for purpose by the PRC. Why doesn't the UK simply

:48:37. > :48:41.change the EU wide classification? If we did this is the process. It

:48:42. > :48:47.would have two inform the commission and the standardisation bodhes of 28

:48:48. > :48:49.countries would have the medting consult and only are they all agreed

:48:50. > :48:53.that they give their findings to a commission which would transpose it

:48:54. > :49:01.into her director for all mdmber states. Whilst the snail-like

:49:02. > :49:05.progress grinds on our children are vulnerable to horrific burns. The

:49:06. > :49:09.Business Secretary requested a change in standards and spot checks

:49:10. > :49:12.on retailer selling fancy dress costumes that these costumes were

:49:13. > :49:17.only subjected to flammabilhty testing to assess if they mdet with

:49:18. > :49:20.the current EU safety stand`rds the very same standards that thd PRC

:49:21. > :49:25.have condemned is not that for purpose. Claudia Winkleman knows

:49:26. > :49:29.only too well from personal experience of a child's costume

:49:30. > :49:33.catching alight and I pay tribute to her campaign which has left many of

:49:34. > :49:37.our High Street stores voluntarily making their play close to the

:49:38. > :49:41.higher nightwear standard, but because it is only voluntarx post

:49:42. > :49:45.will be inferior products on the market. It is so hard to sort out

:49:46. > :49:50.the good from bad as price hs not an of safety. Good housekeeping

:49:51. > :49:54.magazine tested some Hallowden costumes all of which met the

:49:55. > :49:59.current EU standards and thd cheapest in their flammabilhty test

:50:00. > :50:04.was also the safest. The algae cost about ?3 99 did not catch lhght at

:50:05. > :50:15.all whether Sainsbury is fantastic vampire costume at ?13 only cost

:50:16. > :50:21.five seconds to capture light. - catch light. It is a minefidld for

:50:22. > :50:25.consumers. Figures for fire related Internet -- injury show that around

:50:26. > :50:31.Halloween time there was a 37% increase on the 2012 figures in

:50:32. > :50:36.2013. Things are getting worse. Regardless of the trading standards

:50:37. > :50:40.findings that... I wish to lake it clear I am not asking to make it

:50:41. > :50:43.clear to change the designation of these toys in the pollutants, I am

:50:44. > :50:50.asking that the flammabilitx level of these toys as a -- is at the same

:50:51. > :50:55.standard as nightwear. It proves, it is well tried and it affects

:50:56. > :50:58.children. The host library told me that reclassifying fancy drdss

:50:59. > :51:05.costumes is close by not be the best way to achieve the object of. I

:51:06. > :51:09.ever, some types of clothing are subject to specific national

:51:10. > :51:13.regulations such as nightwe`r. This is a domestic rather than ET

:51:14. > :51:19.legislation. It provides a precedent for the UK to lead the way without

:51:20. > :51:22.breaching EU loft. This reflects the general principle that EU

:51:23. > :51:26.legislation sets the minimul European wide standard which do not

:51:27. > :51:31.prevent member states from putting in place national legislation

:51:32. > :51:34.because beyond that. Sometiles this is called gold-plating. I bdlieve

:51:35. > :51:40.the most expedient thing thd government can do would be to insert

:51:41. > :51:44.a statutory instrument into its existing UK legislation which would

:51:45. > :51:47.require any children stress of cost to Brazil in the UK must have the

:51:48. > :51:51.higher British standard for flammability in addition to the

:51:52. > :51:55.current EU toy standard. Our gold-plated standard could be

:51:56. > :51:59.adopted in time throughout Durope if they so choose that the prilary

:52:00. > :52:03.concern of our government mtst be to protect children in the UK `nd to do

:52:04. > :52:07.it as quickly as possible. Too many young children are already living

:52:08. > :52:12.with the consequences of having highly flammable dress up costumes.

:52:13. > :52:16.The chief fire officer's association is by calling for this

:52:17. > :52:19.classification to be changed so that safety standards for fancy dress

:52:20. > :52:23.costumes are stepped up and the nightwear protection seems to be the

:52:24. > :52:27.way to go. I want our government to lead the way on improving fhre

:52:28. > :52:34.safety for our children the way it did in 1964. Don't let us whth

:52:35. > :52:39.another while longer while lore children suffer the consequdnces of

:52:40. > :52:43.this substandard toy director. Europe can follow us but wants to

:52:44. > :52:46.but I would like this Parli`ment to bring in a statutory instrulent to

:52:47. > :52:51.protect our children and I would like to do it as quickly as

:52:52. > :53:01.possible. The question is that the honourable member have leavd to

:53:02. > :53:08.bring in the bill? The ayes habit. He will prepare and bring in the

:53:09. > :53:14.bill? Ledeen Doris, Kelvin Hopkins, Paul Scully, Esther Philip Holub,

:53:15. > :53:19.and Trevelyan, Graham Brady, John Barron, Lady Sylvia Hermon, Mr

:53:20. > :53:37.Stuart Jackson and Mr Tim lhghten, and myself, Mr Speaker.

:53:38. > :54:03.consumer protection standards of fire resistance with childrdn's play

:54:04. > :54:11.costumes etc Bill. Second rdading what they? Friday the 2nd of March

:54:12. > :54:18.2016. Order. We come now to the programme

:54:19. > :54:35.the question is the immigration bill, the motion as on the order

:54:36. > :54:39.paper. The ayes habit. The clerk will proceed to read the waters of

:54:40. > :54:47.the day. Immigration Bill as amended in the public committee to be

:54:48. > :54:52.considered. We begin with the new clause 16 with which it will be

:54:53. > :55:07.convenient to consider new clause 17, amendments eight team to 20 33,

:55:08. > :55:18.47 to 53, 35, 46, 22 to 26, 54 to 57, 41, 21, new clause to sde it,

:55:19. > :55:24.nine and 13, and amendments 32. The move new clause 16 I call the

:55:25. > :55:46.spokesperson for the SNP. Stuart MacDonald. Mr Speaker, I beg

:55:47. > :55:49.to move new clause 16 and the other new clauses and amendments hn my

:55:50. > :55:54.name and those of honourabld and right honourable friend 's. I am

:55:55. > :55:57.unashamedly moving lots of amendments today, and there are

:55:58. > :56:02.several others that we would like to support which I will come to endure

:56:03. > :56:05.course. The large number of changes we want to see reflects our

:56:06. > :56:09.hostility to this bill, which we oppose and will vote against, as it

:56:10. > :56:12.is ill-conceived and regressive and will do little to move the country

:56:13. > :56:16.towards the government's increasingly ludicrous lookhng net

:56:17. > :56:22.migration tugger. If the bill passes, perhaps one or two of these

:56:23. > :56:25.amendments might provide a little comfort in an otherwise ble`k piece

:56:26. > :56:30.of legislation. Turning first to the two new clauses at the start of

:56:31. > :56:35.these dick to rectify two provisions which exemplify for us were

:56:36. > :56:40.fundamental problems lie, what is new clause 16. Its 60 put in place

:56:41. > :56:47.restriction on one the signhficant -- its 60 put in these

:56:48. > :56:52.restrictions. A large part of this Bill seems to us to be a wed sister

:56:53. > :56:55.powers from UK immigration staff which the government rather

:56:56. > :57:01.unquestionably wants to hand over to them. I am happy to give wax. I am

:57:02. > :57:06.grateful to the honourable gentleman. If I heard him correctly,

:57:07. > :57:12.he doesn't like the Bill. And his amendments might make the bhll a bit

:57:13. > :57:18.more likeable. If they were all to be passed, his amendments and his

:57:19. > :57:24.new clauses, would he be in the positive lobby this evening? We have

:57:25. > :57:27.dumped our best to make the bill more palatable, but even with all

:57:28. > :57:31.our amendments, we would sthll find the damage that this bill would

:57:32. > :57:36.cause unacceptable, so regardless of what happens, we will vote `gainst

:57:37. > :57:40.it. I mentioned two of the new clauses at the start of this group.

:57:41. > :57:48.The second is new clause 17, which would repeal the provisions injured

:57:49. > :57:52.used by the 20 act, provisions which would have limited effect on the

:57:53. > :57:56.government's net migration target, but are nonetheless deemed necessary

:57:57. > :58:01.to make the government look tough on immigration. As I said at sdcond

:58:02. > :58:05.stage, it is in reality immhgration theatre, acting out the path of

:58:06. > :58:08.immigration enforcer. But while there is little evidence th`t it

:58:09. > :58:12.will achieve much in terms of immigration control, on the other

:58:13. > :58:18.hand, its consequences in tdrms of cohesion could be said in evidence.

:58:19. > :58:23.On the point he just made, he talked about looking tough. Would he not

:58:24. > :58:27.agree that that is the challenge for the government in this Bill? We want

:58:28. > :58:35.to see measures in immigrathon which are effective, not just that appear

:58:36. > :58:42.to be tough. I agree that wd need to enforce the immigration rulds we

:58:43. > :58:45.have in this country. The problem is that the resources and manpower are

:58:46. > :58:50.not put into doing that. We do not need new rules, it is new rdsources

:58:51. > :58:57.to enforce the rules that already exist. Some of the rules already go

:58:58. > :59:02.to far. Moving on to new cl`use 16 in more detail, this is a modest

:59:03. > :59:10.response to clause 13, which creates powers for immigration officials to)

:59:11. > :59:15.is 448 hours there appears to be any involvement of those suspected of

:59:16. > :59:18.illegal working. This could have consequences for innocent workers

:59:19. > :59:22.whose place of work is closdd for up to two days. Provisions for

:59:23. > :59:25.statutory compensation which our amendment would introduce are

:59:26. > :59:38.designed to ensure that these notices are not issued in an unfair

:59:39. > :59:41.manner. There are three othdr amendments we have signed in

:59:42. > :59:45.relation to write to rent, starting with the crucial amendment 35, which

:59:46. > :59:50.would remove the criminal s`nctions and what we regard as Dickensian

:59:51. > :59:53.eviction process is from thhs bill. Also amendment 36, designed to

:59:54. > :59:58.prevent those letting out rooms on a charitable basis from being

:59:59. > :00:02.criminalised. And finally, amendments 54 to 57, which remove

:00:03. > :00:07.powers to legislate for regtlations for new Scottish rights to rent

:00:08. > :00:11.regulations, with immense effect on devolved Scottish housing l`w. We

:00:12. > :00:15.also support the changes proposed by Labour members such as amendment 22,

:00:16. > :00:18.which is designed to effect what we can only presume to be a dr`fting

:00:19. > :00:21.anomaly under which a landlord would be guilty of an offence for renting

:00:22. > :00:26.to a person with no right to rent even during the period of 28 days

:00:27. > :00:31.when you cannot evict the pdrson. We also back the man amendments 23 to

:00:32. > :00:33.26, which would remove obscdne proposals which would see l`ndlords

:00:34. > :00:37.not only turned into immigr`tion officers, but also a High Court

:00:38. > :00:42.judges and would see summarx evictions without judicial

:00:43. > :00:45.oversight. I know my four from Glasgow North East will havd much

:00:46. > :00:49.more to say on these dreadftl and draconian measures if given the

:00:50. > :00:54.opportunity. Our view is thd same as it was at second reading. Write to

:00:55. > :01:03.rent, in our view, flies in the face of evidence provided by parts of the

:01:04. > :01:08.government's review. It is tnfair to put criminal to landlords and will

:01:09. > :01:10.lead to describe against ordinary citizens without documents `t risk

:01:11. > :01:15.of being rejected from a tenancy whenever there is an easy option of

:01:16. > :01:19.a British passport owner to lend to. It will push more families `way from

:01:20. > :01:26.immigration control, making enforcement harder, not easher. I

:01:27. > :01:31.turn now to one part of the bill were something might emerge, and

:01:32. > :01:37.that is in the first few cl`uses of part one and the provisions for

:01:38. > :01:39.Labour market and forced thdm. It is sad that the Immigration Bill

:01:40. > :01:46.suggests that the new rule hs concerned with enforcing imligration

:01:47. > :01:49.laws. We join our colleagues in supporting amendment 18, is assigned

:01:50. > :01:52.to it ensure the functions of the director are exercised for

:01:53. > :01:58.protecting the victims of L`bour market exploitation. More

:01:59. > :02:03.fundamental is amendment 19, which six to remove the illegal working

:02:04. > :02:07.week. We share concerns that it will have little effect on immigration

:02:08. > :02:11.control, but will have adverse effects. The negative consepuences

:02:12. > :02:17.could undermine the decent work the government has been doing to tackle

:02:18. > :02:19.slavery and trafficking and drive workers further underground and

:02:20. > :02:25.leave them more at risk of exploitation. On this issue, we know

:02:26. > :02:27.that James Ewing's report on domestic workers is with thd

:02:28. > :02:33.government but as yet not available to members. We would question why

:02:34. > :02:36.that is and when we will be able to see it and get to debate it in order

:02:37. > :02:39.to inform what should happen with this bill, should it get a third

:02:40. > :02:45.reading here. Finally, in rdlation to part one of the act, amendment 30

:02:46. > :02:50.36 to ensure that employers who inadvertently employ someond without

:02:51. > :02:58.the right to work on crimin`lised by the Bill. It does so by not

:02:59. > :03:02.requiring that they have re`sonable cause to believe an employed may not

:03:03. > :03:05.have the right to work. We `re concerned that the current test

:03:06. > :03:12.might catch those who are not the intended target. There are two but

:03:13. > :03:14.that sets of amendments in this first grouping. The first rdlate to

:03:15. > :03:19.how a number of these provisions would be incremented in Scotland.

:03:20. > :03:23.Clauses ten, 11 and 16 all hnclude what I would refer to as Henry VIII

:03:24. > :03:28.clauses, powers to legislatd for Scotland and Northern Ireland and in

:03:29. > :03:33.one case, Wales. There are provisions which set out

:03:34. > :03:38.insignificant detail and ard subject to legislative scrutiny. Th`t is not

:03:39. > :03:42.the case for Scotland. Instdad, the Secretary of State is given sweeping

:03:43. > :03:46.power to legislate in a simhlar way. That power includes thd ability

:03:47. > :03:49.to amend acts of the Scottish parliament without any conshderation

:03:50. > :03:52.of that parliament's view on the matter, and that is despite the fact

:03:53. > :03:59.that liquor licensing, drivdr 's car hire licensing act devolved matters.

:04:00. > :04:03." and has long been hostile to Henry VIII clauses, and rightly so. These

:04:04. > :04:08.clauses are particularly pernicious for the reasons given, and should be

:04:09. > :04:11.rejected. That can be done by supporting amendment is 47 to 5 ,

:04:12. > :04:15.which would remove the power to regular for Scotland in this way,

:04:16. > :04:19.thereby requiring primary legislation and the full scrutiny

:04:20. > :04:23.that entails a star. Altern`tively, amendment 41 requires any stch

:04:24. > :04:27.regulations which required the consent of the Scottish Parliament,

:04:28. > :04:32.again requiring proper scrutiny That is surely only right. Finally,

:04:33. > :04:35.I turn to new clauses 13 and amendment 42. This House witnessed a

:04:36. > :04:39.powerful backbench business debate in September, led by the Honourable

:04:40. > :04:45.members for Sheffield Centr`l, Bedford and Enfield, who I know

:04:46. > :04:49.would want to be here if thdy could and speak on this issue agahn today.

:04:50. > :04:57.On that day, there were strong speeches on all sides of thhs House

:04:58. > :05:00.as it united to tell the government that immigration contention was not

:05:01. > :05:03.to double. We are the only country in the EU without a time lilit. On

:05:04. > :05:09.these benches, we would prefer that we move straight to a posithon where

:05:10. > :05:13.they'll is granted after 28 days as set out in clause amendment 32.

:05:14. > :05:20.Alternatively, we will support new clause 13 to see progress towards

:05:21. > :05:22.that goal. My honourable frhend will be aware that the immigration

:05:23. > :05:27.detention inquiry panel heard evidence from a consultant

:05:28. > :05:30.psychiatrist that those who are detained for over 30 days stffer

:05:31. > :05:33.significantly higher mental health problems than those detained for

:05:34. > :05:37.less than 30 days. Does my honourable friend agree that this

:05:38. > :05:42.evidence reinforces the need for new clause 32? I am grateful to my

:05:43. > :05:46.honourable friend for that intervention. I agree with what she

:05:47. > :05:53.says. It is one of a huge ntmber of reasons that were highlightdd in the

:05:54. > :05:57.debate earlier this year. Does my 'em share my concerns for the

:05:58. > :06:01.well-being of those migrants being detained, and experience described

:06:02. > :06:06.by one man as three years in a cage? The conditions in which migrants are

:06:07. > :06:10.detained without any shred of dignity, would he concurred that the

:06:11. > :06:13.Home Office seems to have forgotten that given rights are universal and

:06:14. > :06:18.not conditional upon immigr`tion status? My honourable friend decked

:06:19. > :06:22.her point powerfully. It is not just about a time limit, but going

:06:23. > :06:26.forward is about conditions and moving away from routine usd of

:06:27. > :06:30.immigration to make it a rare exception rather than almost the

:06:31. > :06:35.normality. In conclusion, there is widespread demand for changd. And if

:06:36. > :06:52.there is one silver line in the dark cloud represented by this bhll, it

:06:53. > :07:02.will be a time-limit on detdntion. Rebecca Harris. As I have mdntioned

:07:03. > :07:05.previously, immigration was the single most important issue for my

:07:06. > :07:12.constituents at the recent dlection and remains so. I am sure mdmbers on

:07:13. > :07:16.all sides of this House werd also find that is the case for

:07:17. > :07:19.themselves. I have spent several weeks sitting on the Immigr`tion

:07:20. > :07:24.Bill. I am fully in support of the bill as the government has drafted

:07:25. > :07:27.it. I feel moved to speak hdre in particular on new clauses ehght and

:07:28. > :07:30.nine dealing with limits on detention. While I appreciate the

:07:31. > :07:34.thinking behind such amendmdnts I cannot support the measure, as

:07:35. > :07:39.introducing a time-limit on detention is a core approach to an

:07:40. > :07:42.important issue. I also belheve new clause 30 Ms Pritchard, as we are

:07:43. > :07:46.awaiting the results of sevdral government reviews into the whole

:07:47. > :07:50.system of attention. The Hole Office already have a policy to safeguard

:07:51. > :07:53.against unnecessary or arbitrary retention of individuals. Ddtention

:07:54. > :07:57.must be used sparingly and for the shortest period possible. However,

:07:58. > :08:08.cases must be assessed on an individual basis. I thank the

:08:09. > :08:12.honourable member for giving way, but she will recognise that whilst

:08:13. > :08:15.that is the principle of thd Home Office, does she not accept that

:08:16. > :08:20.there is powerful evidence that the Home Office is failing to achieve

:08:21. > :08:24.those objectives, by the fact that many people are detained for months

:08:25. > :08:27.and indeed some four years, and therefore a statutory limit could

:08:28. > :08:34.bring a culture change in the approach to the issue? I th`nk the

:08:35. > :08:37.honourable member, but I believe that the Home Office is alrdady in

:08:38. > :08:40.the process of three separate reviews into this process, which

:08:41. > :08:50.makes these you clauses prelature until we have had the full results

:08:51. > :08:55.of more detailed work. I appreciate my honourable friend and her point

:08:56. > :09:00.about the need for views to inform the debate. Does she not sh`re my

:09:01. > :09:05.apartment that as those revhews have been pending for many months, we in

:09:06. > :09:09.the Commons do not have that information as we deliberatdly

:09:10. > :09:16.amendments before us today? I do recognise the frustration at that,

:09:17. > :09:19.but properly conducted revidws take time and we have urgent bushness to

:09:20. > :09:25.do with a lot of measures in this bill. I feel confident that the

:09:26. > :09:29.government will deal with this issue. In instances where

:09:30. > :09:33.individuals are detained whhle their case is investigated, regul`r

:09:34. > :09:38.reviews can be undertaken when sure that such detention remains

:09:39. > :09:42.proportionate. I'm sure that any improvements that can be made will

:09:43. > :09:44.be made by the government. Hn addition to this, detention is

:09:45. > :09:50.always a matter for the judhcially. Cases where an individual h`s been

:09:51. > :09:53.detained are rightly subject to scrutiny by the courts. The

:09:54. > :09:57.judiciary is clear that factors such as risk to the public and an

:09:58. > :10:01.individual's immigration history are key in deciding the timescale for

:10:02. > :10:05.detention. It is correct to have judicial authority to be thd guiding

:10:06. > :10:06.principle in these cases, btt not a random figure in both by

:10:07. > :10:24.politicians. Such a limit allows people to use

:10:25. > :10:27.subvert the rules. They queted refused to go operate with the

:10:28. > :10:34.authorities save in the knowledge that they will be released `fter

:10:35. > :10:40.four weeks. This cannot be the intention of this size. A thme

:10:41. > :10:45.limits could be irresponsible risk to national security. I cannot

:10:46. > :10:56.support these amendments and a urge other members to oppose thel. I beg

:10:57. > :11:00.to move the amendments in mx name. As I go through them I hope it will

:11:01. > :11:04.be helpful to the house by hndicate which of those amendments I am

:11:05. > :11:10.currently intending to have pushed to the vote. Can I start with the

:11:11. > :11:16.labour markets provisions? Le on this side supports the establishment

:11:17. > :11:21.of the director of labour m`rket enforcement. This will provhde

:11:22. > :11:27.strategic leadership which hs much and very welcome. The real hssues in

:11:28. > :11:34.relation to the director resources and focus. In the bill commhttee we

:11:35. > :11:37.heard evidence from Professor Metcalfe, chair of the migr`tion

:11:38. > :11:43.advisory committee. He said he understood the issues of public

:11:44. > :11:46.finances that he did not thhnk the enforcement bodies have enotgh

:11:47. > :11:53.resources. He pointed to thd fact that in the low skilled report, HMRC

:11:54. > :12:01.could be that the visit any given premises once every 250 years and it

:12:02. > :12:07.was the prospect of prosecution every million years. I accept the

:12:08. > :12:12.points that any investigation would be intelligence led untargeted but

:12:13. > :12:17.those figures are starting to point to the problem of resourcing. The

:12:18. > :12:24.gang masters licensing authority investigations dropped from a in

:12:25. > :12:29.2011 .68 in 2014. Clearly wd can't deal with resources here in this

:12:30. > :12:35.debate that amendment in te`m is intended to give a focus to the

:12:36. > :12:37.director to ensure that the functions of the director are

:12:38. > :12:42.exercise for the purpose of protecting the Vic is and to make

:12:43. > :12:48.this explicit on the face of the bill. I should indicate that this

:12:49. > :12:53.follows and mirrors the way the modern slavery act dealt with the

:12:54. > :12:57.functions of the anti-slavery commission established by that act.

:12:58. > :13:02.There is a good precedent for this amendment. It does provide clarity

:13:03. > :13:06.and it avoids the misconception or temptation about this role which is

:13:07. > :13:13.being introduced in Immigration Bill, namely that it should be about

:13:14. > :13:15.labour market enforcement, not immigration and control and the

:13:16. > :13:21.experience of other countrids suggest this is the right focus for

:13:22. > :13:25.this important role. I will turn to the question of illegal working

:13:26. > :13:34.which has been touched alre`dy. In particular, a member 19, whhch

:13:35. > :13:40.admits the new legal working offence and maintains the status quo. -

:13:41. > :13:44.omits. Time and again the point has been made about the exploit`tion of

:13:45. > :13:52.the vulnerable. The migration advisory committee reported in these

:13:53. > :13:55.terms, the combination of noncompliance and insufficidnt

:13:56. > :13:59.enforcement can lead to instances of severe exploitation, partictlarly

:14:00. > :14:08.vulnerable groups such as mhgrants. They on to say we are struck on our

:14:09. > :14:11.visits around the country bx the amount of concern that was dxpressed

:14:12. > :14:15.by virtually everyone we spoke to her by the exploitation of ligrants

:14:16. > :14:21.in low skilled jobs. There hs a great deal of other evidencd to the

:14:22. > :14:27.same effect. What is desper`tely needed is more resources for

:14:28. > :14:31.inspections, her focus on the - on exploitative employers and `

:14:32. > :14:35.mechanism to encourage employees to have the confidence to come forward.

:14:36. > :14:41.This new provision cuts across that. These provisions are likely to

:14:42. > :14:47.ensure that those who are the most exploited and vulnerable will become

:14:48. > :14:52.more exploited and vulnerable. It will in effect simply strengthen the

:14:53. > :15:00.hand of gang masters over exploited workers. It also fails the test of

:15:01. > :15:03.necessity. There are alreadx criminal provisions relating to

:15:04. > :15:09.those that have breached imligration rules and there is no need to

:15:10. > :15:13.introduce a new criminal offences in relation to employees. They are the

:15:14. > :15:17.most vulnerable, they are the most exploited and we want to give them

:15:18. > :15:22.the confidence to come forw`rd if they do director is to achidve the

:15:23. > :15:28.function set out in the sack. I do intend to push amendment 19 to the

:15:29. > :15:34.votes, but I shall listen to what the Minister has to say. Can I

:15:35. > :15:39.change or a related question to this offence of illegal working `s far as

:15:40. > :15:48.employees concerned? It is ` strict or start offence and I'm totching on

:15:49. > :15:51.amendment 20, an employee who does not have the right immigrathon

:15:52. > :15:57.status who commits an offence, there is no defence at all. To give an

:15:58. > :16:01.example of the injustice th`t is likely to be caused by such a

:16:02. > :16:06.provision, if an employee in good faith relies on his or her dmployer

:16:07. > :16:13.to sponsor him or her and there is something wrong in the procdss that

:16:14. > :16:18.means as a matter of law thd employee is unbeknownst to them

:16:19. > :16:24.does not have the right immhgration status they automatically commit an

:16:25. > :16:28.offence and have no reasonable excuse defence. That can't be right

:16:29. > :16:34.when creating a criminal offence in this field and it is not good enough

:16:35. > :16:37.to the director -- for the Director of Public Prosecutions to s`y that

:16:38. > :16:45.the prosecution needs to wedd out those cases, there needs to be

:16:46. > :16:53.something on the statute. I turned to the provisions on landlords and

:16:54. > :17:00.the right to ransom. The background to these provisions is important as

:17:01. > :17:05.we go through this report stage The 2014 immigration act introdtced a

:17:06. > :17:12.civil penalty scheme in rel`tion to write the rents. It was discussed in

:17:13. > :17:17.this House and there were concerns about what impact it would have in

:17:18. > :17:24.practice, and in particular if there would be discriminatory effdcts

:17:25. > :17:26.Assurances were given about piloting the civil penalty scheme and

:17:27. > :17:34.properly evaluating it before it was ruled out. What we have in this

:17:35. > :17:39.building 2015 is a proposal to extend the civil penalty scheme by

:17:40. > :17:43.introducing a criminal penalty before there has been a full and

:17:44. > :17:46.meaningful evaluation. As w`s mentioned at the second reading of

:17:47. > :17:51.the bill, the joint Council for the welfare of immigrants did c`rry out

:17:52. > :17:58.an evaluation that should alarmingly that 42% of landlords said the right

:17:59. > :18:01.to rent provisions made thel less likely to consider someone without a

:18:02. > :18:05.British passport. At that stage we did not have the advantage of the

:18:06. > :18:12.Home Office evaluation, which is made available in the bill stage.

:18:13. > :18:20.That evaluation was a small and narrow our valuation and on its face

:18:21. > :18:25.in relation to certain aspects of the evaluation the Home Offhce

:18:26. > :18:29.itself said this, we are not sure about the statistical significance

:18:30. > :18:36.of part of the valuation and the sample sizes are too small to draw

:18:37. > :18:41.any robust conclusions. So, we save the assurance in relation to the

:18:42. > :18:44.civil penalty scheme has not been fulfilled and there is no w`rrant

:18:45. > :18:55.for extending it to a criminal sanction. I go onto a relatdd

:18:56. > :19:02.point, and that is amendment 22 This deals with the position of

:19:03. > :19:05.landlords who, as the provisions are currently drafted, automatically

:19:06. > :19:11.commit a criminal offence the moments they are served with notice

:19:12. > :19:19.that they have a tenant without the right to rents. They are

:19:20. > :19:22.criminalised notwithstanding there is a period between receipt of that

:19:23. > :19:28.knowledge, normally by unnoticed, and their best prospect of `ctually

:19:29. > :19:32.getting anybody affected. In other words, if a reasonable, Jack --

:19:33. > :19:38.objective landlord receives notice and immediately acts upon that he or

:19:39. > :19:43.she still criminalised during the process. There cannot be anx

:19:44. > :19:48.sensible or compelling case for that state of affairs and becausd is

:19:49. > :19:55.great concern to landlords. It puts them in an impossible posithon. I

:19:56. > :19:58.understand the government m`y be considering this provision `nd I

:19:59. > :20:02.will listen carefully to wh`t the Minister says that on the f`ce of it

:20:03. > :20:11.is difficult to see that thdre could ever be a case for a provishon such

:20:12. > :20:15.as that. Link to that is amdndments 23, 24, 25 and 26. They all go to

:20:16. > :20:28.the important position of stmmary eviction. This bill introduces a

:20:29. > :20:32.fast-track process innovative in this field where an notice from the

:20:33. > :20:38.landlord stands as a court order, then there is provision for summary

:20:39. > :20:43.eviction. Some 30 or 40 years ago this House set its face agahnst

:20:44. > :20:48.summary eviction is for verx good reason. There were too many examples

:20:49. > :20:54.of families being put out into the street literally with locks changed

:20:55. > :21:02.and sleeping on the pavement. Everybody agreed that there should

:21:03. > :21:05.be due process before evicthons of individuals and families,

:21:06. > :21:09.particularly those with children. This act cuts through that

:21:10. > :21:13.protection for no good causd and issued in this country in the

:21:14. > :21:16.21st-century Vino group of individuals who for whatever

:21:17. > :21:24.reason, whether renting lawfully or not, are subject to summary eviction

:21:25. > :21:32.proceedings, which we turned our back on a long time ago. Can I then

:21:33. > :21:38.move the immigration detenthon? This has already been touched on. It is a

:21:39. > :21:49.matter of increasing concern to many in this House and beyond. The fact

:21:50. > :21:54.of an indefinite nature of immigrants detention causes anxiety

:21:55. > :21:58.particularly among vulnerable groups. It is the indefinitd nature

:21:59. > :22:04.of the detention that Asda that the stress. There is strong evidence of

:22:05. > :22:10.the impact on varying groups, but particularly on women. I thhnk I am

:22:11. > :22:13.right in saying that the UK is the only country in Europe that does not

:22:14. > :22:19.currently have the time limht of any sort on immigration detention. That

:22:20. > :22:25.has been the subject of enqtiry by the cross-party joint all p`rties

:22:26. > :22:31.are in the group on refugees and the all-party part in the group on

:22:32. > :22:34.migration. They concluded wd believe the United Kingdom has a proud

:22:35. > :22:41.tradition of upholding justhce and the right to liberty. Howevdr, the

:22:42. > :22:46.continued use of indefinite detention puts this proud tradition

:22:47. > :22:54.at risk. Those reforms, suggested by the cross-party joint APPG groupware

:22:55. > :22:59.backed by the House of Commons when the recommendations were debated in

:23:00. > :23:04.September of this year. A motion was passed supporting them. This is an

:23:05. > :23:10.area of increasing concern `nd the position where it justifying

:23:11. > :23:18.indefinite immigration detention is increasingly difficult. Amendment 32

:23:19. > :23:21.is intended to deal with th`t by introducing a 28 day limit, which

:23:22. > :23:30.many people feel is the right limits. New clause 13 is intended to

:23:31. > :23:35.allow a review by an independently chaired panel to consider the issues

:23:36. > :23:42.and report to Parliament within three months, so therefore hs not

:23:43. > :23:46.premised on a fixed period. It is important that there is progress on

:23:47. > :23:53.these issues. Immigration ddtention is a real cause for concern. This is

:23:54. > :23:59.an opportunity to do somethhng that is necessary in this area. H think

:24:00. > :24:03.the honourable gentleman has just said that new clause 13 did not

:24:04. > :24:10.prescribe a particular length of time, yet if he looks at paragraph a

:24:11. > :24:14.it does specify that it is leading to a 28 day time period. Can you

:24:15. > :24:23.confirm that that is his position? I apologise. What I meant that that

:24:24. > :24:27.was it proposes a review of the time limit rather than the time limit

:24:28. > :24:32.itself, therefore in the nature of the review it would be open to the

:24:33. > :24:38.review to look at other opthons This is an area where I think there

:24:39. > :24:43.are shared concerns across the hows about immigration detention and the

:24:44. > :24:47.indefinite nature of that ddtention. There will be disagreement `s to the

:24:48. > :24:52.precise time limit. If therd is to be a time limit. That is solething

:24:53. > :24:57.to be discussed. The sit back at this stage and simply accept the

:24:58. > :24:59.status quo is not an accept`ble way of proceeding but they will listen

:25:00. > :25:12.to what the Minister has to say Would he agree that one of the

:25:13. > :25:17.values of a time limit is to provide the person detained with sole

:25:18. > :25:20.certainty about what is how annoying while they are being detaindd? We

:25:21. > :25:25.have heard evidence from constituent the difficulty is people get put

:25:26. > :25:30.into detention and they do not know what is going to happen to them and

:25:31. > :25:34.as a consequence, there are mental health issues from that. I `m

:25:35. > :25:40.grateful to the honourable lember and I agree with his point. There is

:25:41. > :25:43.the fact of detention in thd first place which covers a wide r`nge of

:25:44. > :25:48.individuals detained for different reasons. There is the indefhnite

:25:49. > :25:53.nature of that attention whhch adds to the anxiety because most terms of

:25:54. > :25:57.detention for a fixed period which allows the individual to know when

:25:58. > :26:03.they may retain liberty. It is the indefinite nature adding to that.

:26:04. > :26:10.There will be debates as to what the precise time limit should bd. But

:26:11. > :26:14.the sustaining a situation of indefinite detention is no longer

:26:15. > :26:20.acceptable in the 21st-centtry. It is not a position in almost all

:26:21. > :26:24.other countries in Europe and it should not in the position hn this

:26:25. > :26:33.country. I give very much, Ladam Deputy Speaker. Thank you vdry

:26:34. > :26:37.much. There seems to be somdbody who sat with the honourable gentleman

:26:38. > :26:45.and others on the committee a terrible sense of deja vu, to put it

:26:46. > :26:50.politely. Groundhog Day, not to be as polite. We have had a lot of

:26:51. > :26:54.these debates and discussions in committee and I hope that those who

:26:55. > :27:00.did not join me in voting the way I did at committee would at ldast

:27:01. > :27:05.recognise it was a very thotghtful committee and we went through the

:27:06. > :27:11.entire bill at great depth `nd we had a raft of amendments tabled And

:27:12. > :27:19.debated. But I think even the opposition parties ran out of steam,

:27:20. > :27:26.allowing the usual channels to pulse stomps sometime before the committee

:27:27. > :27:32.was tabled dash-mac to all stumps. I hope that in no way suggests we

:27:33. > :27:38.cantered through hastily. The important issues which this will

:27:39. > :27:43.looks to address. My honour`ble friend who is now no longer in place

:27:44. > :27:50.from Castle Point, I thought hit the nail on the head. She along with my

:27:51. > :27:56.honourable friend from Norwhch North in committee said this is probably

:27:57. > :28:01.one of the most important issues this house and this Parliamdnt will

:28:02. > :28:06.deal with. If we get it right, we will engender a sense of

:28:07. > :28:15.understanding of fair play `nd that this place gets it. If we gdt it

:28:16. > :28:22.wrong, we will seem to be even more disengaged from the communities we

:28:23. > :28:29.see to serve. I am very lucky to represent a predominantly rtral

:28:30. > :28:34.constituency which even at ` casual fans of the census returns would

:28:35. > :28:38.suggest immigration would not be an issue, it would not be a debate it

:28:39. > :28:45.would not be raised on the doorsteps and meetings. But I have to say that

:28:46. > :28:54.even in rural North Dorset, it was and it continues to be. With the

:28:55. > :28:59.greatest pleasure. Does the member appreciate H

:29:00. > :29:04.represent a constituency th`t has a significant proportion of pdople

:29:05. > :29:09.from other countries? It was raised once on the doorsteps with le in a

:29:10. > :29:13.year. I would make the point to the honourable gentleman that p`rties

:29:14. > :29:18.like Ukip for example tend to do well in areas with few immigrants

:29:19. > :29:23.and it is perception causing people to have a problem with immigration,

:29:24. > :29:29.rather than reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, this hs

:29:30. > :29:32.noteworthy even for Hansard. The honourable lady and I have found

:29:33. > :29:38.something upon which we agrde when it comes to this issue. What sits at

:29:39. > :29:44.the kernel of this will is to shoot in many respects Ukip's Fox, that

:29:45. > :29:47.the country or the government or Parliament at Westminster or

:29:48. > :29:55.Whitehall has become rather soft on this issue. We just address the

:29:56. > :30:01.first intervention. Dash-macro me just. I represent North Dorset but I

:30:02. > :30:08.have had a first prize in the lottery of life and I am a Welshman.

:30:09. > :30:13.I was hoping for support, btt not! Coming from Cardiff, is verx mixed

:30:14. > :30:20.and culturally diverse city which thank goodness has had very little

:30:21. > :30:27.tension in between communithes. But even back in 2010 in the eldction,

:30:28. > :30:30.it was becoming an issue and irrespective of what the imligrants

:30:31. > :30:34.make up of a community is, people are keen to address it and that is

:30:35. > :30:40.what this bill is about and what these amendments... I will have the

:30:41. > :30:45.honourable lady first. I thank the honourable gentleman.

:30:46. > :30:49.Would he agree that rather than shooting Ukip's Fox, what this

:30:50. > :30:54.Government is doing with thd bill is allowing the party that has one

:30:55. > :31:01.single MP in this place to lake the rules and is pandering to what they

:31:02. > :31:06.were calling for? We are really venturing into the

:31:07. > :31:11.broader aspect of the princhples of the bill rather than these

:31:12. > :31:14.amendments. I am happy for the honourable dense and to respond but

:31:15. > :31:21.if we can move back to the amendment. I fall into you dash mac

:31:22. > :31:25.into my usual trap, I was trying to set a backdrop to the reason why

:31:26. > :31:29.this bill has come about and why these amendments are in my judgment

:31:30. > :31:36.fundamentally wrong. Honour`ble lady has taken me neatly onto my second

:31:37. > :31:40.point and the amendments in her name. I think the position of the

:31:41. > :31:47.separatists is entirely disingenuous. With regard to this

:31:48. > :31:54.issue. The honourable gentldman who moved his new clause 16 said even if

:31:55. > :31:59.it was not if that was passdd but the whole raft of other amendments

:32:00. > :32:04.which the SNP have tabled, they would still not be able to support

:32:05. > :32:09.the bill. And we should not, Madam Deputy Speaker, be unduly strprised

:32:10. > :32:16.by that. Because what we were able to tease out in committee, what we

:32:17. > :32:21.were able to tease out from their questioning of the witnesses we had,

:32:22. > :32:29.is that the members representing Scottish seats in the SMP's interest

:32:30. > :32:37.believe in controlled and unfettered immigration dash-mac the SNP. They

:32:38. > :32:40.believe in an open door polhcy. And moreover, they see on behalf of

:32:41. > :32:46.their friends in the Scottish Parliament to assume to thelselves

:32:47. > :32:51.powers and privileges reserved to this house with regards to the

:32:52. > :32:57.control of immigration and suddenly fire the back door to see it as a

:32:58. > :33:01.new and devolved power. And that is something I think that anybody with

:33:02. > :33:07.a strand of unionism and colmon sense in their body should look to

:33:08. > :33:12.resist, which is why I will vote against those amendments thhs

:33:13. > :33:15.evening. In essence, I think what they are trying to do, Madal Deputy

:33:16. > :33:24.Speaker, at the heart of thdse amendments to which I am spdaking,

:33:25. > :33:32.is to effectively encourage further devolution, further separathon and

:33:33. > :33:35.actually to have a great attention between the regions and countries of

:33:36. > :33:40.the UK. The honourable lady says from a sedentary position whth her

:33:41. > :33:47.customary self-deprecating humour, is, and yes, I mean the SMP.

:33:48. > :33:54.Dash-mac Oz. And on this side of the House, we are going to look to

:33:55. > :33:59.resist this because we see this power, the control of immigration,

:34:00. > :34:08.with incredibly porous borddrs given with incredibly porous borddrs given

:34:09. > :34:13.our coastal nature. It would either suggest that it would, I wotld

:34:14. > :34:19.suggest, be foolish to open a Pandora's box of devolution with

:34:20. > :34:23.regards to immigration issuds. This affects... With the most enormous

:34:24. > :34:28.pleasure, as always. I rather think that he missds the

:34:29. > :34:34.point about the amendment. What is happening is that in various

:34:35. > :34:37.different parts of this ill, there is great and detailed provisions

:34:38. > :34:41.relating to England and Walds and in some cases Northern Ireland and a

:34:42. > :34:45.broad sweeping power for thd Secretary of State to do thd same

:34:46. > :34:48.or without scrutiny in the Scottish or without scrutiny in the Scottish

:34:49. > :34:52.Parliament. If the honourable gentleman does not agree in terms of

:34:53. > :34:56.getting approval from the Scottish Parliament, at least get rid of the

:34:57. > :35:00.regulatory powers. It would have to be legislation and scrutiny in this

:35:01. > :35:08.house rather than a Henry VHII cause. I hear what he says but what

:35:09. > :35:12.I would say in reply is that this is a bill brought forward in a United

:35:13. > :35:18.Kingdom Parliament which has had frantic discussion both at second

:35:19. > :35:24.reading and in committee and one report stage and doubtless `t third

:35:25. > :35:31.reading. And I would suggest that he should be saying to his fridnds who

:35:32. > :35:33.hold ministerial office and other positions of power within Scotland

:35:34. > :35:40.and within the Scottish Parliament that they should always enstre that

:35:41. > :35:48.where they are effectively delivering duties pasta to them

:35:49. > :35:51.dash-mac dash past to them tnder a devolved government, they should

:35:52. > :35:57.make sure how they deliver those policies and put them in pl`ce and

:35:58. > :36:02.on the ground always reflects the national law of the land. And I make

:36:03. > :36:12.the point again which I was bringing to a conclusion before it -, before

:36:13. > :36:17.I gave way, it is simply thhs. That if this clause which creates a

:36:18. > :36:25.devolution on immigration to Holyrood were to be passed, then by

:36:26. > :36:31.its very definition, the Unhted Kingdom government would nedd to

:36:32. > :36:36.find ways of trying to control the movement of people coming from

:36:37. > :36:43.Scotland South into England and possibly from the South to the North

:36:44. > :36:47.as well. Because as I say, we teased out during the committee st`ge both

:36:48. > :36:53.in private session and in the evidence sessions the firm

:36:54. > :36:59.commitment of the Scottish National party to open doors and no veterans

:37:00. > :37:02.to immigration. That is somdthing my constituents in the South of England

:37:03. > :37:07.would be grossly alarmed at. I give way. And I as the honourabld member

:37:08. > :37:14.if he can tell the house anxthing that any of us said that wotld lead

:37:15. > :37:18.him to believe that the SNP supports an open doors, open borders policy?

:37:19. > :37:22.I cannot think of anything, I am sure the honourable member for

:37:23. > :37:30.Paisley cannot think of anything, so what is he referring to? Unlike the

:37:31. > :37:35.noble lord Green, I had no difficulty understanding wh`t she

:37:36. > :37:38.and her honourable friend s`id at any time in committee. The

:37:39. > :37:48.honourable gentleman will know precisely to what I refer. But

:37:49. > :37:54.sometimes, the toner, the whng and a nod, in the direction of tr`vel and

:37:55. > :38:03.both questions and amendments at committee and indeed in amendments

:38:04. > :38:09.today can read one only to `ssume that the SNP, for reasons entirely

:38:10. > :38:16.respectful, and if they wish to deploy them, do not believe in any

:38:17. > :38:21.control of immigration. The narrative coming from the hdartland

:38:22. > :38:26.honourable friend on the colmittee, honourable friend on the colmittee,

:38:27. > :38:31.again said he had nobody during the election campaign raised imligration

:38:32. > :38:39.as an issue on the doorstep. With the greatest pleasure...

:38:40. > :38:42.Thank you. I just wanted to go back to our discussions in committee

:38:43. > :38:49.which were indeed thoughtful and well debated. And I do agred with

:38:50. > :38:56.the member for Castle Point and Norwich North and indeed yotrself

:38:57. > :39:02.from North Dorset regarding the issue on the doorstep. It w`s a

:39:03. > :39:07.number one issue. After the by-election, we were third `nd then

:39:08. > :39:16.had to reflect in our delibdrations. had to reflect in our delibdrations.

:39:17. > :39:21.And I heard one lawyer reprdsenting a freedom of movement block which I

:39:22. > :39:25.felt was disingenuous so it was a number one issue. And the c`seload

:39:26. > :39:29.we were left by the party opposite... The honourable lady is

:39:30. > :39:34.hoping to catch my eye later in the debate. I suggest she makes her

:39:35. > :39:40.intervention at that point. Thank you. The good people of Easley, many

:39:41. > :39:49.of whom I got to know during the by-election at the time, will no

:39:50. > :39:52.doubt breathe is -- a sigh of relief that they have a champion in my

:39:53. > :40:00.friend who gets absolutely that if we are to have a sensible and

:40:01. > :40:02.vibrant and capacious debatd in this country, it is right this house

:40:03. > :40:08.address is it to legislation and so the bill is brought forward by our

:40:09. > :40:21.right honourable friend the Immigration Minister.

:40:22. > :40:36.the first thing I would say is in regards to immigration removal

:40:37. > :40:42.centres and detention. I thhnk that they play a pivotal role in the

:40:43. > :40:49.arsenal available to us as ` country and to those who we charge with

:40:50. > :40:57.managing our borders and our immigration. I have to say, I think

:40:58. > :41:05.the staff working in these centres deserve a huge debt of grathtude. I,

:41:06. > :41:14.in a previous incarnation w`s fortunate to visit quite a few of

:41:15. > :41:21.our IRCs including one at Hdathrow and I was struck by the dedhcation

:41:22. > :41:26.of the staff and I was not convinced that we would be addressing this

:41:27. > :41:34.issue in any sense of away `s these amendments seek to frustratd by

:41:35. > :41:40.Terrington up the rule book in terms of the IRCs and detention. H am

:41:41. > :41:44.extraordinarily grateful for him giving way, in that pivotal role in

:41:45. > :41:50.immigration detention centrds, does he want to defend the detention of

:41:51. > :41:54.pregnant women, people who have been victims of human trafficking,

:41:55. > :42:03.torture or sexual violence, if not, will he suppose my -- support minute

:42:04. > :42:10.clause eight? In reverse order, his first point, I say yes but his last,

:42:11. > :42:14.no. Any woman, pregnant or not, is immaterial to the case, it hs the

:42:15. > :42:18.environment in which people are detained and the care and attention

:42:19. > :42:23.they are given rather than their status. What I would say to my

:42:24. > :42:28.honourable friend, given thd proximity to his constituency, it

:42:29. > :42:36.might even be within his constituency, is that I heard from

:42:37. > :42:42.both staff and from people who were detained that they had seen people

:42:43. > :42:46.destroy their papers, hide their child under the bed because the

:42:47. > :42:53.child could not be touched when the aeroplane was on the tarmac to take

:42:54. > :43:00.them off and away. Those st`ff, in my judgment and my experience and

:43:01. > :43:05.that is from all I can speak is that they approach this with hugd

:43:06. > :43:12.sensitivity, often in difficult circumstances. I ought to think that

:43:13. > :43:16.the people we asked to manage these centres do a good job, for ` point

:43:17. > :43:21.of clarification, my concern about this issue is not because of my

:43:22. > :43:26.proximity to a detention centre but the proximity of some of thdse rules

:43:27. > :43:31.to the ethical code I have concerns. The honourable member mentioned

:43:32. > :43:35.about the fact it was the c`re of the people in those centres, is he

:43:36. > :43:42.aware of the case PA, a pregnant woman delayed in Yalta wood and who

:43:43. > :43:47.the Home Office had to admit was not given the proper antenatal care If

:43:48. > :43:54.you detain pregnant women, listakes will be made and therefore we need

:43:55. > :44:00.to protect ourselves and our ethics by having some rules to exelpt them.

:44:01. > :44:04.I do not want to test your patience or indeed that of the house by

:44:05. > :44:08.straying too far but my honourable friend has raised a valid point I

:44:09. > :44:18.would say this, and I certahnly was aware of that case, I never think it

:44:19. > :44:22.is quite right to build a policy on one incident. Terrible things

:44:23. > :44:26.happen, when people are pregnant, whether they are detained or in

:44:27. > :44:31.their ordinary business. Thdre is medical negligence even if xou are

:44:32. > :44:35.outside prison or a detention centre. Nasty things, upsetting and

:44:36. > :44:39.tragic things happen which ly right honourable friend is right, that

:44:40. > :44:44.should raise questions and lake sure that members, honourable and right

:44:45. > :44:47.honourable in this house ard continually ensuring that the

:44:48. > :44:55.quality and access to the qtality and range of care to those who are

:44:56. > :45:02.detained is wide, deep, quantitative and professional. He is right, but I

:45:03. > :45:06.don't believe that one case or an isolated incident should force us to

:45:07. > :45:12.effectively say that immigr`tion removal centres and the principle of

:45:13. > :45:16.detention is inherently wrong or indeed unethical. As a practising

:45:17. > :45:25.Christian myself, I find no difficulty in reconciling a good

:45:26. > :45:31.quality care in detention and art in my faith, and ethical basis. Talking

:45:32. > :45:36.about his remarks, this is `bout fair play, that issue goes to the

:45:37. > :45:41.heart of these amendments as well. On the issue of pregnant wolen, in

:45:42. > :45:45.the Home Office guidance, not so much an independent case, the Home

:45:46. > :45:51.Office says it considers groups including those who are pregnant,

:45:52. > :45:54.that they are only suitable for detention in very exception`l

:45:55. > :45:57.circumstances. It is whether that needs more attention, that hs the

:45:58. > :46:02.issue we are concerned about, proper fair play for these people. My

:46:03. > :46:06.constituents are concerned `bout fair play, as with those who are

:46:07. > :46:14.concerned with patrolling otr borders. He makes the absoltte

:46:15. > :46:18.point, this has to be about fairness and robust regulations. Proper

:46:19. > :46:24.ministerial oversight and scrutiny of ministerial duties by thhs place.

:46:25. > :46:30.I think that is absolutely the right chain of command. And we all know,

:46:31. > :46:35.whether it be in the health care system, education, the police, Armed

:46:36. > :46:41.Forces or whatever it may h`ppen to be, things go wrong. Regulations not

:46:42. > :46:45.necessarily for those to be followed to the letter. And it is a horrible

:46:46. > :46:50.phrase and we all trot it ott in this house, "lessons will bd

:46:51. > :46:55.learned. " I think my right honourable friend, the Immigration

:46:56. > :47:02.Minister, and I do not say this to be sycophantic, will always ensure

:47:03. > :47:08.that those regulations are fair and that they are applied fairlx. On the

:47:09. > :47:13.subject of fairness, could H say Madam Deputy Speaker, words about

:47:14. > :47:21.workers, both employees and employers, landlords and hotsing. It

:47:22. > :47:24.will be a small sample and the honourable gentleman who spdaks from

:47:25. > :47:29.the opposite front bench and I have discussed this, you can oftdn have a

:47:30. > :47:35.survey which says one thing and you can extrapolate the data, no matter

:47:36. > :47:41.how small or large the sample size is. But the laws and regulations

:47:42. > :47:45.that today govern access to the private rental property market and

:47:46. > :47:51.for those in affordable housing are pretty strict and robust. I think

:47:52. > :47:56.what this says and in conjunction with those clauses of the bhll which

:47:57. > :48:02.ring new responsibilities to both employees and employers is that this

:48:03. > :48:07.is an issue which has becomd, one is tempted to say, not as a chdap

:48:08. > :48:17.knocking political point, btt the quantum became so large it due to

:48:18. > :48:21.the rather shy and deleterious attitude of the party opposhte when

:48:22. > :48:25.in Parliament, that governmdnt and her agencies cannot seek to solve

:48:26. > :48:31.all of these issues and problems. I think that it is why it is perfectly

:48:32. > :48:39.proper to say to a landlord just about to enter into a rental

:48:40. > :48:44.agreement that he or she and his or her agent has made absolutely the

:48:45. > :48:50.most forensic tests and checks possible to ensure the legitimacy

:48:51. > :48:54.and qualification of that individual or family who is seeking

:48:55. > :49:01.accommodation. I see no particular onus on that and in order to avoid

:49:02. > :49:07.the scenario which the honotrable and learn a gentleman from Holborn

:49:08. > :49:11.and St Pancras raises, I wotld have thought that both the advicd given

:49:12. > :49:15.by the residential landlords Association to their members and the

:49:16. > :49:23.advice given to the residential letting agencies will be cldar as to

:49:24. > :49:27.what their duties are. It whll be important to stress to both that

:49:28. > :49:35.they are helping the governlent and the country play a very important

:49:36. > :49:41.role in addressing this isste. That takes me from the right of `ccess to

:49:42. > :49:49.housing to access to work. Dither as an employee or as an employdr. I

:49:50. > :49:54.think it is absolutely right, as contained in the bill and I would

:49:55. > :50:02.say that the amendments addressing these issues are at best

:50:03. > :50:10.mischievous, they are at worst devious. Is trying to fundalentally

:50:11. > :50:18.undermine, I have little or no doubt that employers, whether thex be

:50:19. > :50:25.large or small, usually seek to kick back from any new regulation or

:50:26. > :50:32.guidance from which they have to operate. But that should not be a

:50:33. > :50:38.factor on us imposing them hf we are convinced of their efficacy. In this

:50:39. > :50:44.respect, what is contained hn this bill, its efficacy I am convinced

:50:45. > :50:50.and fundamentally believe that those amendments would seek to undermine

:50:51. > :50:53.it. It is no good, Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable and right

:50:54. > :50:57.honourable members in this house, irrespective of which side of the

:50:58. > :51:05.political divide we fall, wringing our hands against trafficking,

:51:06. > :51:12.wringing our hands against slavery, wringing our hands against forced

:51:13. > :51:18.labour, and then when the opportunity comes to augment

:51:19. > :51:26.previous legislation, for example the rules and the act governing gang

:51:27. > :51:33.masters and we say "no, this is a step too far. " "It is too great an

:51:34. > :51:39.onus on the employer, we must seek to resist this. " In my judgment,

:51:40. > :51:45.that sends such a mixed and confusing message to those dvil

:51:46. > :51:51.individuals, who today, are benefiting in labour and cash terms

:51:52. > :51:58.from forced and end entered labour. If we do not prevail with the

:51:59. > :52:04.clauses in this bill as amended at committee, in my judgment, `nd I

:52:05. > :52:11.state, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is only in my judgment, the

:52:12. > :52:16.fundamental flaw will be a load the water line. When and if the

:52:17. > :52:20.honourable and learn a gentleman from the official opposition and the

:52:21. > :52:26.honourable gentleman and his comments from the SNP benchds press

:52:27. > :52:31.and the amendments, I will be trotting into the no macro lobby and

:52:32. > :52:41.I hope many of my friends whll be joining me. Madam Deputy Spdaker, I

:52:42. > :52:45.spent five long weeks on thd immigration Bill committee `nd it

:52:46. > :52:51.was an interesting experience. But I found very little I could agree with

:52:52. > :52:55.unfortunately. Along with the members of lazily and Renfrdwshire

:52:56. > :53:00.North, I think we did some pretty forensic questioning, the conclusion

:53:01. > :53:07.I reached was that the motivation behind much of this bill is not as

:53:08. > :53:12.stated. It cannot be becausd much of it will not work. It will not do

:53:13. > :53:17.what it apparently sets out to do. It will impact negatively on anyone

:53:18. > :53:30.who looks, sounds or even sdems not to be British. Thank you, I would

:53:31. > :53:34.say right to rent is a good example of the problem she is highlhghting

:53:35. > :53:41.and the landlords may be too scared to lend to someone who might not

:53:42. > :53:46.seem to be British. Absolutdly, my honourable friend took the words out

:53:47. > :53:49.of my mouth, I was about to say this was the perfect example of this The

:53:50. > :53:54.landlords Association were clear that landlords are fearful of

:53:55. > :53:58.committing a criminal offence by renting to the wrong person

:53:59. > :54:05.inadvertently and it will ldad to them behaving in a racist m`nner,

:54:06. > :54:08.they are their words. It cotld be because they are not white, their

:54:09. > :54:13.surname does not sound Brithsh or because they do not have a passport

:54:14. > :54:17.that they will simply not t`ke them on as tenants. They will not take

:54:18. > :54:21.the risk making it harder for those people to get accommodation and put

:54:22. > :54:24.some of them in danger. Thex have no choice about where they lay their

:54:25. > :54:29.head at night and in some circumstances, with whom. Or they

:54:30. > :54:32.could end up on the street, I do not want that for people who have a

:54:33. > :54:36.right to live here but nor do I want it for people who don't havd the

:54:37. > :54:41.legal right to live here, I don t want that for everyone. If the

:54:42. > :54:46.government were to write a script for a film, it would be a black and

:54:47. > :54:49.white one in more ways than one it would be straightforward, if someone

:54:50. > :54:53.is assumed asylum and we sqteeze the life out of them by forcing them

:54:54. > :54:59.onto the streets and starving them, that they will simply stroll up and

:55:00. > :55:04.give in and go home. We nevdr get to know what happens to them btt in

:55:05. > :55:08.Britain, we all live happilx ever after. All the evidence tells us

:55:09. > :55:14.that is not what happens. I will tell you why, for many people, they

:55:15. > :55:18.have no choice, sleeping on the street in training and freezing cold

:55:19. > :55:22.Britain, going hungry day after day, knowing that you are despisdd by so

:55:23. > :55:27.many people who pass you by is still preferable to returning somdwhere

:55:28. > :55:30.where you have all that and the danger of being raped or evdn

:55:31. > :55:33.murdered. That is what the dvidence tells us, those working with

:55:34. > :55:44.destitute asylum seekers tell us. There is one hour to go for those

:55:45. > :55:49.watching this on television, if they go to committee room 14, thdy will

:55:50. > :55:55.find a fantastic organisation. Sanctuary, with doubled since -

:55:56. > :56:01.with dozens of asylum seekers. I know this was something we did

:56:02. > :56:06.discuss in committee. She rdfers to the term asylum seekers, dods she

:56:07. > :56:11.mean they'll asylum seekers who have claimed asylum or the claims have

:56:12. > :56:16.not been upheld? Asylum seekers are supported through the systel. Thank

:56:17. > :56:21.you for giving me an opporttnity to talk about the language we tse

:56:22. > :56:26.committee says failed asylul seekers, I say refused asyltm

:56:27. > :56:29.seekers. The married -- the majority of those reviews or failed by this

:56:30. > :56:36.Government when the appeal `t court stage.

:56:37. > :56:43.You have used the phrase asxlum seekers. Do you accept this bill is

:56:44. > :56:49.focused at a range of categories where somebody may become illegal

:56:50. > :56:56.and living here? Not specifhcally targeting asylum seekers. I

:56:57. > :56:59.absolutely am aware of that but we have limited time so I have to focus

:57:00. > :57:03.on what I think is the most important impact of this part of the

:57:04. > :57:09.bill will have and that is on the most vulnerable and those asylum

:57:10. > :57:16.seekers who have been refusdd. I just wonder if she can give the

:57:17. > :57:21.House and example of an asylum seeker, a failed asylum seeker, does

:57:22. > :57:26.she believe any asylum seekdr should have failed?

:57:27. > :57:31.I would not use that language about anyone but I understand somd asylum

:57:32. > :57:37.seekers, people look for asxlum and they are not entitled to it. I made

:57:38. > :57:41.that clear on the bill, I al talking about those asylum seekers who do

:57:42. > :57:47.need help and should be enthtled and when they get the opportunity to

:57:48. > :57:50.appeal do tend to win and so it is accepted they did require asylum and

:57:51. > :57:55.we need to give it to them. The point I am making is right to rent

:57:56. > :58:02.or not provide a happy ever after. It will not work and will increase

:58:03. > :58:05.discrimination and racism. Ht should not be fermented in Scotland without

:58:06. > :58:09.the permission of the members of the Scottish Parliament to whom housing

:58:10. > :58:14.is devolved amongst other things. And it should be removed in its

:58:15. > :58:21.entirety from the bill. I whll give way.

:58:22. > :58:26.Her party has often repeated a call for a more relaxed approach to

:58:27. > :58:30.asylum. They have opposed the forced removal of failed asylum sedkers and

:58:31. > :58:33.pledged in the last manifesto to close the only detention centre in

:58:34. > :58:40.Scotland, a King is very much an image problem. -- making thhs. -

:58:41. > :58:46.making this very much an English problem. Many countries across the

:58:47. > :58:55.world do not make much use of detention and the use of thd ways to

:58:56. > :58:58.unable people. Have a project which works successfully to return

:58:59. > :59:06.families when there is no other option, it is not essential always

:59:07. > :59:10.successfully get the amendmdnt successfully get the amendmdnt

:59:11. > :59:14.through and get rid of Right to Rent, there is a specific moment I

:59:15. > :59:18.wish to ask the government to accept because I cannot believe thhs was

:59:19. > :59:23.anything other than an oversight. During the committee, I askdd for

:59:24. > :59:27.more detail on when somebodx providing a roof over it is to check

:59:28. > :59:34.peasant's head becomes liable to criminal prosecution -- a ddstitute

:59:35. > :59:38.person. Many do this as an `ct of compassion as volunteers, if you

:59:39. > :59:44.want to bring in the Christhan faith is good Samaritans. I wanted clarity

:59:45. > :59:51.they would not face court and possibly prisoner for showing a

:59:52. > :59:57.kindness to somebody. I recdived partial assurance, thus amendment

:59:58. > :00:01.46. It is more important now than ever because we will have more

:00:02. > :00:10.people needing this kindness than ever before if this bill gods

:00:11. > :00:13.through. It was one of the greatest reactions to the current refugee

:00:14. > :00:19.crisis which escalated over the summer. Thousands wanted to know how

:00:20. > :00:25.to help. We said on both sides of this House we were so proud of those

:00:26. > :00:29.people. Let them in, they s`id, we will give them homes. Thous`nds

:00:30. > :00:34.offered to open their homes to those in desperate need. At that time the

:00:35. > :00:39.offer was in response to thd mainly Syrian refugees and refugees who

:00:40. > :00:42.have been rented leave to rdmain will not be affected by this bill

:00:43. > :00:50.because accommodation will be provided. I should say not `ffected

:00:51. > :00:55.directly. But the debate has started again and people are looking at

:00:56. > :00:59.asylum seekers already in the UK with fresh eyes, charities `re

:01:00. > :01:06.saying, we have many refused asylum seekers currently destitute, why not

:01:07. > :01:09.home them instead? If they do however and this goes through

:01:10. > :01:14.unamended, those kind, compassionate, generous people could

:01:15. > :01:18.be criminalised. They said the Minister gave the partial

:01:19. > :01:22.reassurance and I will expl`in. If no money changes hands, there is no

:01:23. > :01:26.issue and you can still let a refused asylum seeker or fahled

:01:27. > :01:30.asylum seeker is the members opposite like to say stay at your

:01:31. > :01:37.home if no money is exchangdd. That was welcome news organisations in my

:01:38. > :01:43.city of Glasgow. Unity incltded which does a good job of kedping

:01:44. > :01:47.vulnerable people away from the streets with little funding. But

:01:48. > :01:51.what if you are a householddr who cannot afford that? Rich in

:01:52. > :01:57.compassion but poor in finances It costs money to let another person

:01:58. > :02:01.live in your home, heating `nd lighting costs, food. Let's face it,

:02:02. > :02:05.it even if that is not part of the agreement, you will not sit down to

:02:06. > :02:11.dinner knowing another person under your roof is growing hungry. Some

:02:12. > :02:16.charities will pay a nominal fee to the householder, not profit,making

:02:17. > :02:25.or a commercial rent, to cover the costs. I have had no set re`ssurance

:02:26. > :02:30.these people, where they st`nd. The Minister said exemptions have been

:02:31. > :02:35.made for refugees housing vhctims of trafficking but why not exelpt

:02:36. > :02:40.anybody housing in refused `sylum seeker because otherwise thdy will

:02:41. > :02:43.have to live on the streets? Is the government going to make crhminals

:02:44. > :02:46.of these people still volunteers because they are not making money

:02:47. > :02:51.out of this, is he going to criminalise them for having the

:02:52. > :02:54.decency to share with a str`nger in trouble and not being wealthy enough

:02:55. > :02:58.to cover the increased costs themselves? And what of the

:02:59. > :03:06.charities? Like the actions foundation in Newcastle which looks

:03:07. > :03:12.for philanthropic landlords for asylum seekers to rent at a heavily

:03:13. > :03:17.discounted rent paid for by the charity. Bells -- those landlords

:03:18. > :03:24.will be committing a crimin`l offence. And the charities, they

:03:25. > :03:30.need to know. And did the government intend for that to happen? @bigail

:03:31. > :03:34.housing in Leeds and open doors provide accommodation not in family

:03:35. > :03:42.homes but houses lent by falily owners and empty church buildings.

:03:43. > :03:47.They need to pay a nominal but not commercial rent. Nobody is laking a

:03:48. > :03:53.profit. Dozens of charities and individuals across this grotp -

:03:54. > :03:57.country carry out this work, will they be committing an offence? Those

:03:58. > :04:05.who provide accommodation whll be, it seems. Ahmed and women going to

:04:06. > :04:11.be prosecuted for the doing as the Bible says and not turning the other

:04:12. > :04:15.cheek? Is the government colfortable with imprisoning faith leaddrs for

:04:16. > :04:19.up to five years? I would ask the government to think again otherwise

:04:20. > :04:23.what they are saying to those thousands who responded to the

:04:24. > :04:27.refugee crisis in a manner of which we will all rightly proud is you

:04:28. > :04:31.cannot help. There is a need and we will increase that by making more

:04:32. > :04:37.refused asylum seekers homeless but if you dare to help, we will

:04:38. > :04:41.criminalise you. She is making her point with the

:04:42. > :04:48.same eloquent passion she dhd in committee. But she pointed to

:04:49. > :04:53.evidence about the open door policy and what I perceived the position of

:04:54. > :04:57.the SNP to be, is she aware she has just done that? She has talked about

:04:58. > :05:01.refused asylum seekers who have no right to be here. Being allowed to

:05:02. > :05:06.stay here as long as they lhke based on the philanthropy of individuals

:05:07. > :05:09.which is to be championed and supported, but when people have gone

:05:10. > :05:15.through the process, she must even admit it is then time to go home!

:05:16. > :05:18.The honourable member knows that some people simply cannot go home

:05:19. > :05:22.and he knows it and his govdrnment knows it because even peopld in

:05:23. > :05:26.those circumstances often do not get sent home but to detention centres

:05:27. > :05:30.where they languish for a vdry long time because they cannot be sent

:05:31. > :05:35.home. I am not talking about every single asylum seeker. I am not

:05:36. > :05:39.talking about doing it indefinitely. I say we should not criminalise

:05:40. > :05:44.people who open their homes to people in desperate need. To be

:05:45. > :05:50.clear, I oppose the right to rent in its entirety. I question thd

:05:51. > :05:53.government and its right to override the wishes of the Scottish

:05:54. > :05:57.parliament and I raise a topical issue I hope will be simply an

:05:58. > :06:03.anomaly that the government will put right.

:06:04. > :06:11.It is a pleasure to take part in this part of the deliberations. I

:06:12. > :06:20.want to speak about the amendments in which my name is included, clause

:06:21. > :06:28.number macro, nine, 13 and 32. - clause eight. They are uniqte and

:06:29. > :06:32.may have a cross party feel. I have not had the pleasure of being

:06:33. > :06:37.involved in all the stages of this bill but I reckon this must be a

:06:38. > :06:41.unique aspect that we have cross-party support for amendments

:06:42. > :06:46.in the bill and that has not happened until now. And the Minister

:06:47. > :06:52.has taken notice of that and that is being considered. There is

:06:53. > :06:57.cross-party concern in relation to what my honourable friend t`lked

:06:58. > :07:02.about, which is fair play, `nd we are concerned about that. About

:07:03. > :07:08.ensuring the immigration system stands up to scrutiny from the very

:07:09. > :07:14.beginning to the very end. Ht has fair play within it. That m`tters

:07:15. > :07:20.for those who shout loudest and for those campaigning loudly. Whether it

:07:21. > :07:28.is before elections, in othdr campaigns, throughout the ydar. For

:07:29. > :07:33.those without such a voice `nd who do not even have a vote. And very

:07:34. > :07:42.much what Fairplay should bd about is the other who is not as loud but

:07:43. > :07:45.where we want to uphold fundamental British values of fairness `nd J

:07:46. > :07:53.process. Indeed, one could refer back to the Magna Carta on the issue

:07:54. > :07:57.of detention. And to the right and duty of detaining those when there

:07:58. > :08:03.has been fair and J process and not administrative purposes alone. I

:08:04. > :08:08.concede that has not been the main purpose of the bill from its

:08:09. > :08:13.outset, this is coming at it from another angle, but it will not

:08:14. > :08:16.surprise the Minister these amendments are therefore

:08:17. > :08:22.consideration. It is import`nt when dealing with one aspect of the

:08:23. > :08:25.immigration bill which is ddtention, that we uphold the principlds that

:08:26. > :08:30.have stood this country well for many years. And the rest of the

:08:31. > :08:35.world looks at this, which hs how we handle detention, with fairness And

:08:36. > :08:42.dealing with those detained for administrative reasons and the bar

:08:43. > :08:46.is set higher, that we are proportioned and reasonable and

:08:47. > :08:49.doing things in a limited w`y that means a limited number of pdople

:08:50. > :08:55.remain in detention for a short a time as possible. Regardless of any

:08:56. > :09:01.amendment getting past and hn statute or guidance, we must ensure

:09:02. > :09:05.that visible is applied. Dods the honourable member agree that what

:09:06. > :09:11.unites the parties here is the principal that there should be some

:09:12. > :09:16.measure to limit and reduce the time spent immigration detention

:09:17. > :09:20.centres, to limit it and look to reduce it?

:09:21. > :09:22.I do agree and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in

:09:23. > :09:27.relation to that. The abiding principle which is in many ways the

:09:28. > :09:33.product and should be the product now before we go further, one looks

:09:34. > :09:38.into the Home Office guidance and detention is a last result. It

:09:39. > :09:43.should be used sparingly and it is wanting to ensure it is somdthing

:09:44. > :09:50.for everybody to use and apply throughout the system. The principal

:09:51. > :09:54.IC is important is however people get into this country, by f`ir means

:09:55. > :10:00.or foul means, everybody is treated fairly and with dignity all the way

:10:01. > :10:06.through to maybe their removal and certainly as they remain with us. It

:10:07. > :10:08.may be by force but at everx stage of the time, we need to show we

:10:09. > :10:28.respect their human dignity. It may give it difficult for the

:10:29. > :10:33.Minister to talk about one specific person, but to limit and reduce the

:10:34. > :10:38.amount of time people spend in detention is something diffdrent and

:10:39. > :10:42.it is possible to talk to. H agree, it is important to get the first

:10:43. > :10:48.principles right and we havd had lots of discussions around the

:10:49. > :10:53.instances of timing and maxhmum time, we have had that debate in the

:10:54. > :10:59.all-party enquiry which he was a member of, as the member for

:11:00. > :11:11.Sheffield Central and tribute to Sarah to the, who fought hard about

:11:12. > :11:14.this issue. For enjoying in this campaign -- for joining in this

:11:15. > :11:20.campaign, very much involved in this issue, it is important we do not get

:11:21. > :11:26.caught up on the issue... Bdtween time and time itself, some of us

:11:27. > :11:33.feel we may get to that stage where it needs that statutory timd limit

:11:34. > :11:37.to really ensure that there is some movement to ensure everyone is doing

:11:38. > :11:41.all they can to limit the thme. It is important we listen to the

:11:42. > :11:47.Minister and hear what he h`s to say as I understand the review he is

:11:48. > :11:51.looking at and to go through what is a new clause 13 which I may come to

:11:52. > :11:57.in my remaining remarks. And to see how we want to achieve what we are

:11:58. > :12:01.all saying is the principles that have been outlined. It is ilportant

:12:02. > :12:07.that we recognise there is work out the happening in relation to

:12:08. > :12:13.detention and a review into the conditions of detention is

:12:14. > :12:19.important. We wanted it sooner, the home affairs select committde that I

:12:20. > :12:24.sit on wanted it to happen before we got into this process we ard going

:12:25. > :12:28.through now, I appreciate the government is looking at it very

:12:29. > :12:35.carefully and treating it whth the respect it is deserved. But I also

:12:36. > :12:44.welcome the indications there is further comprehends every vhew that

:12:45. > :12:51.goes to the heart of a new clause 13 but it is important we look at it in

:12:52. > :12:56.this hill. There is a danger that detention centres do not get enough

:12:57. > :13:03.attention, but it can be solething out of sight and out of mind, over

:13:04. > :13:10.the years, 30,000 people held in 11 immigration centres, apart from the

:13:11. > :13:14.circumstances that sometimes lead to litigation, it does not get the

:13:15. > :13:23.attention it needs. Denny is to be action one way or another where we

:13:24. > :13:29.get to the point that detainees are much clearer as to when thex are

:13:30. > :13:36.likely to be released. I sat in a debate we had on a backbench

:13:37. > :13:42.business motion debate, that everything first people want, they

:13:43. > :13:46.ended up in prison after how they dealt with that case, they want to

:13:47. > :13:51.know what is the earliest stage of release and we need to give some

:13:52. > :13:56.greater clarity and expectation At least expectations of the sxstem, we

:13:57. > :14:02.have gatekeepers in place at the right time and various revidw

:14:03. > :14:08.possibilities so there is not the possibility of this in definite

:14:09. > :14:17.detention and a sense of push and pull to ensure people are therefore

:14:18. > :14:23.as limited a time as possible. These new clauses are framed around the

:14:24. > :14:28.all-party group enquiry abott refugees and immigration, wd were

:14:29. > :14:34.able to report before the election but more substantively in the motion

:14:35. > :14:38.to achieve something that h`s not happened before, a unanimous

:14:39. > :14:43.resolution supporting the principles and recommendations bind thhs

:14:44. > :14:47.enquiry. We are concerned about maximum time limit but also the

:14:48. > :14:54.outcomes here. The outcomes that go across conditions of treatmdnt and

:14:55. > :14:59.go to the time and numbers that are in detention. We want to ensure we

:15:00. > :15:03.see action, there is a concdrn about the copper coated piece of work the

:15:04. > :15:10.Minister knows it more than anyone in this house but there is the issue

:15:11. > :15:16.and aspect about foreign national offenders and that is why the new

:15:17. > :15:23.clause nine, my name is there, we will recognise there is an hssue of

:15:24. > :15:27.public protection. That needs to be handled but it is not an excuse for

:15:28. > :15:34.not handling it because it hs complex and difficult, we mtst be

:15:35. > :15:41.able to handle it better. The fact that we are talking about a quarter

:15:42. > :15:44.of immigration detainees ard foreign national offenders of one form or

:15:45. > :15:54.another means it is not good enough to rely on the issues around public

:15:55. > :15:57.protection and we should do better. The issue was mentioned, it is

:15:58. > :16:06.almost arbitrary to have an indefinite time of detention, it is

:16:07. > :16:13.not fair, there are also thd drives of cost. The immigration bill no

:16:14. > :16:19.doubt has gone through an assessment on cost and one of the factors is

:16:20. > :16:23.the cost. We have had the ptblic spending review and the Homd Office

:16:24. > :16:29.is still looking at the isste of cost and it must be a driver for

:16:30. > :16:33.what the cost of one person is in detention, it is something like

:16:34. > :16:41.?36,000 a year to have them in detention. There must be better ways

:16:42. > :16:49.to spend that money. I wantdd, Madam Deputy Speaker, draw attenthon to

:16:50. > :16:53.clause eight, the new clausd eight because it is important awax from

:16:54. > :16:56.the stats to look at the individual categories of the people we are

:16:57. > :17:00.talking about. We can somethmes stereotype them in the wrong way.

:17:01. > :17:07.This goes to the heart of the issue and the concerns the enquirx had. We

:17:08. > :17:13.seek to exempt pregnant womdn and people who have been granted

:17:14. > :17:19.asylum, it was raised by my honourable friend for North Dorset

:17:20. > :17:22.in the debate and as I said in the intervention, the issue herd as with

:17:23. > :17:27.others is that it is alreadx there in the guidance to do these things,

:17:28. > :17:33.it is how we make sure it rdally happens and does not get lost in

:17:34. > :17:37.guidance. It identifies the vulnerable groups of people,

:17:38. > :17:40.pregnant women, those with serious medical conditions or mental

:17:41. > :17:44.illness, those with serious disabilities, those victims of human

:17:45. > :17:53.trafficking, no one would stggest it is immaterial about pregnant women,

:17:54. > :17:57.but it is material and they can only be suitable for detention in

:17:58. > :18:02.exceptional circumstances. What we heard in our enquiry is that

:18:03. > :18:06.guidance is not properly applied and implemented. Those protections are

:18:07. > :18:11.limited and it is all too complicated that we see those

:18:12. > :18:16.victims of trafficking make their way to detention centres for an

:18:17. > :18:20.intolerable amount of time `nd are traumatised again by what they have

:18:21. > :18:26.been through and they feel simile under abuse and trauma, we heard

:18:27. > :18:33.from many people, this is rdlevant to this new clause eight, when she

:18:34. > :18:38.arrived at the IRC is, she was asked if she had been to any traula, she

:18:39. > :18:44.said that she had been throtgh trafficking but she was still issued

:18:45. > :18:50.into detention and she said she was released, half are released like and

:18:51. > :18:55.she has now been recognised as a victim of human trafficking. She is

:18:56. > :18:58.one amongst many where we nded to recognise the screening process is

:18:59. > :19:02.not doing enough. It is not surprising when there are l`nguage

:19:03. > :19:06.issues and people under tratma that when they find themselves in

:19:07. > :19:10.detention they are not likely to speak freely and frankly about what

:19:11. > :19:15.the situation is. This new clause eight challenges the governlent

:19:16. > :19:23.about whether we are doing dnough and do we need to go further and we

:19:24. > :19:26.have been informed by the Stephen Shore recommendation. One fhnal

:19:27. > :19:31.point about the new clause dight, we also heard that in terms of the

:19:32. > :19:38.exceptional circumstance rule for detaining pregnant women, wd heard

:19:39. > :19:44.that the Home Office, there was a team inspector at HM prisons

:19:45. > :19:49.Inspectorate, while looking into pregnant woman, he said thex had not

:19:50. > :19:53.found the exceptional circulstances in the paperwork to justify it in

:19:54. > :19:59.the first place, they almost fail at the first hurdle because it is not

:20:00. > :20:01.taken further. We need to protect the most vulnerable people, the

:20:02. > :20:05.other people we must be carhng about, to make sure they have the

:20:06. > :20:14.FairPlay so they are treated properly. I sense we will look back

:20:15. > :20:22.in history at these times and the numbers detained in immigration and

:20:23. > :20:29.wonder how we tolerated for so long so many people being detaindd who

:20:30. > :20:32.were victims of torture and trafficking and indeed pregnant

:20:33. > :20:38.women. Finally on the new clause 13, an amendment coalescing a lot of

:20:39. > :20:44.people around the house, it is moderate in its recommendathons it

:20:45. > :20:50.is saying what the all-partx group has said and the backbench business

:20:51. > :20:53.motion says and what the hotse resolved to do should indeed

:20:54. > :20:57.happen. That is what the hotse has said quite clearly and unanhmously

:20:58. > :21:03.and that is what it is seekhng to do. I will wait to hear frol the

:21:04. > :21:11.Minister to see exactly how we are going to do what I think is now a

:21:12. > :21:21.front bench view as well across the house that if one looks at the new

:21:22. > :21:29.clause 13, that there is a scope to coalesce bind this. That is the

:21:30. > :21:38.reality we must, here we ard, thank you. Something prepared earlier we

:21:39. > :21:41.all agree, this is what I w`nt to hear from the Minister, we do agree

:21:42. > :21:46.that we will indeed look at how we can reduce the number of people

:21:47. > :21:50.detained. We will make sure we put in place procedures, qualit`tive

:21:51. > :21:54.guidance, to make sure we fhnd a way to minimise the length of thme an

:21:55. > :21:59.individual is detained but we also make sure we put in place gtidance

:22:00. > :22:05.and whatever way that we have more effective form of detention that

:22:06. > :22:11.meets the objectives of this place. " And that we have in place

:22:12. > :22:15.procedures that are effective to decisions for those detained and we

:22:16. > :22:20.continue to detain. That is what I want to achieve. Some would say it

:22:21. > :22:25.still needs a statutory timd limit but let us see what the Minhster

:22:26. > :22:30.says and how that time fits into this bill in the other placd

:22:31. > :22:35.following the report and no doubt the over affairs select comlittee

:22:36. > :22:38.will be listening and also see an update from that comprehenshve

:22:39. > :22:43.review before we go too far down the line in the other place. Either way,

:22:44. > :22:48.can we at least get through the procedures in this bill and make

:22:49. > :22:50.sure we have many less people in immigration detention, many are

:22:51. > :23:00.there for too long and many people who have fair play and respdct for

:23:01. > :23:05.their dignity. Before I addressed the three amendments which H turn my

:23:06. > :23:08.attention to, I want to makd two brief points. The first is hn

:23:09. > :23:14.response to the member for North Dorset and the honourable mdmber on

:23:15. > :23:18.the Labour benches who reminded the house that we should not be going

:23:19. > :23:23.over continually the issues that were discussed in full detahl at the

:23:24. > :23:28.committee stage. I want to lake a gentle point, I would love to have

:23:29. > :23:33.been a part of the Bill comlittee and I do think and I know ntmber two

:23:34. > :23:41.-- nobody can assuage my concerns here, it is not for this pl`ce but

:23:42. > :23:44.on an issue of such importance and reserved in this Parliament, I think

:23:45. > :23:48.it is important to re-emphasise the point that there should be regional

:23:49. > :23:54.representation on a Bill colmittee, at least Northern Ireland, be at my

:23:55. > :23:59.party or any of the others, should have representation on such a

:24:00. > :24:03.committee so we can scrutinhse and get involved in these important

:24:04. > :24:07.discussions. The second thing Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to

:24:08. > :24:11.see the Minister of State for Northern Ireland on the front bench

:24:12. > :24:16.earlier in this debate becatse I hope to grab hold of him before we

:24:17. > :24:27.get to the second round of amendments. I said I was thdre as a

:24:28. > :24:33.member as a Welsh member. I am sure the people of Wales are delhghted

:24:34. > :24:37.and I am very grateful for the intervention, and across thd main

:24:38. > :24:42.parties, the three main parties in this chamber, that there is

:24:43. > :24:47.representation, whether the SNP are present or not for Scotland, England

:24:48. > :24:53.and Wales, it is important they were represented but Northern Irdland is

:24:54. > :24:56.the point I wanted to make. I look forward to contributing on the

:24:57. > :25:01.second round of amendments `nd hopefully we have a chance to

:25:02. > :25:05.discuss them, on the three amendments I want to turn mx

:25:06. > :25:14.attention to, amendments 18, 19 and 20.

:25:15. > :25:23.I do not reach the final conclusion of the honourable member in that he

:25:24. > :25:28.the bill, think many of his the bill, think many of his

:25:29. > :25:32.arguments about the amendments put down were persuasive and powerful.

:25:33. > :25:38.And I do hope they have been listened to by members in this

:25:39. > :25:42.chamber. For me, while I do believe some of the amendments are worthy of

:25:43. > :25:47.support, I do see considerable benefit in the thrust of thhs bill

:25:48. > :25:53.and from that perspective, we will be supporting some amendments but

:25:54. > :26:01.the overall thrust of the bhll has our support as well. Turning to

:26:02. > :26:04.amendment 18 specifically, on the Director for Labour market `nd,

:26:05. > :26:10.there is a persuasive argumdnt about putting in legislation, guidance for

:26:11. > :26:19.this directive. We are not considering a huge directivd, the

:26:20. > :26:27.creation of a large body. This is a large body of work. And the issue of

:26:28. > :26:30.immigration is so big in thd United Kingdom, I do think it would be a

:26:31. > :26:37.mistake for this Parliament not to insert in this bill a provision

:26:38. > :26:41.outlining some direction and guidance and the key functions we

:26:42. > :26:44.expect of the directive. From that perspective, this amendment is well

:26:45. > :26:51.made and the point from the honourable member for some Pancras,

:26:52. > :26:54.you referred to the anti-sl`very Commissioner and through thd Modern

:26:55. > :27:00.Slavery Bill went to an exalple where such direction was given for

:27:01. > :27:06.the core functions. But the example goes further and it can be found in

:27:07. > :27:10.the children and families act for the Commissioner and many examples

:27:11. > :27:14.where this House has deemed it appropriate to impart on an

:27:15. > :27:19.individual functions we expdct of them in the direction of thdir work

:27:20. > :27:23.and wish them well having rdceived the approval of this House. So

:27:24. > :27:31.amendment 18 is something wd can support. Clause 19 one removal of

:27:32. > :27:38.the offence for illegal work is not something I believe we have lovely

:27:39. > :27:42.lend our support to. -- we could lend our support to. I recognise the

:27:43. > :27:47.thrust of this but it is important to the government has the powers

:27:48. > :27:52.available to them to ensure those working in this country do so

:27:53. > :27:57.legally and those who do not recognise there are penaltids and

:27:58. > :28:02.consequences for not doing to the legislation of this land. Btt that

:28:03. > :28:08.naturally brings as to amendment 20. I think there is incredible strength

:28:09. > :28:11.behind amendment 20. And thd insertion of a defence for somebody

:28:12. > :28:17.who find through no fault of their own themselves in a situation where

:28:18. > :28:24.they get coerced, exploited and enslaved to provide Labour. I think

:28:25. > :28:30.it is important and I made this point at second reading, we should

:28:31. > :28:36.insert a defence to that offence. Many in this chamber, when they talk

:28:37. > :28:43.of slavery will hark back to the good old days of William Wilberforce

:28:44. > :28:47.and as a country, we have htge heritage and a proud tradithon of

:28:48. > :28:52.standing against slavery. Btt when he got involved in anti-slavery

:28:53. > :28:59.movements in 1787, he was preceded by a Belfast man called Tholas

:29:00. > :29:03.McCabe in 1786 who at the thme when there was the creation of a company

:29:04. > :29:08.with slave ships in Belfast, you disrupted their meeting where the

:29:09. > :29:13.agreements were to be signed and he declared, make God with othdr hand

:29:14. > :29:18.of any man that signed the declaration and create this company.

:29:19. > :29:24.-- with the hand. He started a revolution in Belfast which

:29:25. > :29:29.facilitated to the rest of the UK in anti-slavery and it is a tr`dition

:29:30. > :29:33.we should proudly remembered today. Will he agree that not only did we

:29:34. > :29:38.get involved in the abolition of slavery, but the United Kingdom took

:29:39. > :29:45.advantage of the slave tradd and benefited from Ed and we sthll unfit

:29:46. > :29:51.from it today from what we hnherited -- from it? The reason for ly focus

:29:52. > :29:54.on anti-slavery is we have ` proud tradition of standing against those

:29:55. > :30:00.who exploit and standing for those exploited. The point you make is it

:30:01. > :30:04.still continues, the point H make is that in today's debate focusing on

:30:05. > :30:11.amendment 20, we should not lose sight of compassion this cotntry has

:30:12. > :30:16.had an should have and that is why I support the amendment 20. And the

:30:17. > :30:20.member for North Dorset I rdfer to all the time made reference to the

:30:21. > :30:29.compassion at the heart of the Minister for immigration. I do not

:30:30. > :30:32.doubt that one bit. But I do believe the small insertion of a defence

:30:33. > :30:37.would be much more preferable than what was suggested at committee

:30:38. > :30:41.stage in resting this decishon with the discretion of the Director of

:30:42. > :30:47.Public Prosecutions. If we `s the supreme Parliament of this country

:30:48. > :30:50.cannot insert a defence and asked the DPP in circumstances whdre he

:30:51. > :30:56.should exercise discretion, what direction should he use in doing so?

:30:57. > :30:59.I do believe it is our role in Parliament to say should

:31:00. > :31:04.circumstances arise where somebody has been exploited, they ard a

:31:05. > :31:08.enslaved in this country, the Director of Public Prosecuthons

:31:09. > :31:14.should look at and see what we as parliamentarians intend to be the

:31:15. > :31:19.defence against the offence of illegal working ship that shtuation

:31:20. > :31:27.arise. I don't think that is an owner is insertion for government to

:31:28. > :31:32.consider. -- own arrest. But given the responses to date have hndicated

:31:33. > :31:37.discretion should present and defences exist already in the modern

:31:38. > :31:43.slavery act as was suggested at second reading stage, if thdre is no

:31:44. > :31:49.actual reticence or resistance to the prospect of a defence, why not

:31:50. > :31:55.make provision for it? I look further to the further amendments

:31:56. > :32:06.and contributing at that st`ge. But that is where we as a party stand on

:32:07. > :32:11.these amendments. New members regarding immigration

:32:12. > :32:20.detention. To exempt certain persons from detention. New clause nine and

:32:21. > :32:26.associated amendment 32. Looking to provide a time limit. And ndw clause

:32:27. > :32:30.13 in the name of my honour`ble friend the member for Enfield and

:32:31. > :32:37.many other MPs across the House about putting a review about the

:32:38. > :32:41.issue of the role of immigr`tion detention in the role of imligration

:32:42. > :32:47.control in the UK. Before I mention those, one sentence. The melbers put

:32:48. > :32:50.forward I the SNP have got nothing to do with separation. They come

:32:51. > :32:55.from an acute sense that thd direction of travel with thhs when

:32:56. > :32:58.two which is to make it harder for people here illegally to be in this

:32:59. > :33:05.country pushes against not just things we would agree are wrong but

:33:06. > :33:10.also against our compassion. I think the SNP right to ask this House

:33:11. > :33:15.have we got that balance right? And make strong points in committee and

:33:16. > :33:19.is today about those measurds. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is such a

:33:20. > :33:22.focus on immigration detenthon in these amendments because we are

:33:23. > :33:26.looking at a history where we had a lack of control of immigrathon and

:33:27. > :33:31.detention in this country. @ long period that we allowed a culture of

:33:32. > :33:38.disbelief to grow within thd process of immigration detention sahd the

:33:39. > :33:45.people caught within it had no way of managing their rights within the

:33:46. > :33:48.system. It is absolutely right we look for a fundamental change.

:33:49. > :33:52.Immigration detention has moved from a part of what we do in immhgration

:33:53. > :33:57.to being a substantive and default position in the process of

:33:58. > :34:03.immigration and control. In doing that, the focus has become, let s

:34:04. > :34:06.look tough rather than, let's be effective. What would be nice to

:34:07. > :34:11.hear today from the Minister is that he gets that. But what he is

:34:12. > :34:14.focusing on is an effective way to achieve what the people of this

:34:15. > :34:17.country want, and effective and compassionate removal of people who

:34:18. > :34:22.have no right to be here but standing up for things we w`nt to

:34:23. > :34:26.protect. Which is a sense of compassion, a sense of valuds. And I

:34:27. > :34:31.fear that in what we proposd today, some of these amendments, if they do

:34:32. > :34:34.not get depressed and we do not hear a sufficient response, the victims

:34:35. > :34:41.will continue to be the British sense of compassion and justice when

:34:42. > :34:46.we manage immigration. Can I thank him for the contribution

:34:47. > :34:50.he is making and my honourable friend for Enfield Southgatd. To

:34:51. > :34:53.underline the sense of efficiency and effectiveness is at the heart of

:34:54. > :34:59.the work we undertake here `nd the broad review currently in process.

:35:00. > :35:02.And certainly come he makes important points around

:35:03. > :35:08.vulnerability and he knows the Stephen Shaw review will focus on

:35:09. > :35:12.that and we will return to this House before committee stagd in the

:35:13. > :35:17.House of Lords to respond to that report and to allow further detailed

:35:18. > :35:22.examination, I hope. I am very pleased that the review

:35:23. > :35:26.will be available for the Lords to review and put amendments down and I

:35:27. > :35:30.can assure the Minister that should those amendment be put down and

:35:31. > :35:35.return to this House to enstre we exempt regnant women and victims of

:35:36. > :35:39.torture and rape, able support amendments at that time if the

:35:40. > :35:45.Stephen Shaw review has not done sufficiently. There is no point

:35:46. > :35:50.going over our concern that report has not been available, we should

:35:51. > :35:53.wait on our lordships. I know right now women will be in yours would

:35:54. > :35:59.detention centre who have bden victims of torture or rape. And we

:36:00. > :36:04.know in the last year, 100 women were pregnant and put into the

:36:05. > :36:08.detention centre, this is not a couple of cases, this is a

:36:09. > :36:16.significant amount. It points to why new clause eight is present. There

:36:17. > :36:20.are limits on the ability of the Minister control the action on the

:36:21. > :36:25.ground. The procedures cannot perfect on paper but impact is, they

:36:26. > :36:30.are failing and falling down and that is why it clause eight to

:36:31. > :36:34.restrict the types of peopld that might fall foul of those processes

:36:35. > :36:39.is present. Is this not more about the hntegrity

:36:40. > :36:44.of the system and how it is supervised rather than introducing a

:36:45. > :36:48.new clause? That is a very good point as part of

:36:49. > :36:52.the evidence that has been built up by case after case in this

:36:53. > :36:58.parliament is what the Home Office saying -- is saying is the case is

:36:59. > :37:02.pay to be not the case. And front and centre of examples of that is

:37:03. > :37:07.Yarlswood. We have had the procedures of gods that shotld be of

:37:08. > :37:11.a certain type and that has not been that which has besmirched m`ny

:37:12. > :37:16.people working in centres who do a good job -- the gods. Also hn

:37:17. > :37:22.procedures of care, that is not followed either. My honourable

:37:23. > :37:26.friend is quite right there is an issue and that is why we waht to

:37:27. > :37:33.hear what the ministers will be likely to say. I want to give way

:37:34. > :37:40.some other member of the group for Sheffield Central can give way. I

:37:41. > :37:44.feel and I hope the Minister has been listening to the work of your

:37:45. > :37:48.party group, the unanimous view of the House of Commons that change

:37:49. > :37:53.needs to be made along the line to the recommendations -- the `ll-party

:37:54. > :37:58.group. He has heard Allah grant speeches from the SNP and the Labour

:37:59. > :38:02.benches and the frontbenchers - eloquent speeches. I feel the

:38:03. > :38:06.Minister is one step away from reassuring the House and I hope you

:38:07. > :38:12.will take that step and I alluded to it a moment ago. I understand the

:38:13. > :38:17.concerns about putting in thme limits for an individual or for even

:38:18. > :38:22.a category of people. But that is different from the intent of the

:38:23. > :38:26.all-party report which is a recognition by the Home Offhce that

:38:27. > :38:32.the use of detention and imligration is overblown and that he thd

:38:33. > :38:36.Minister will look to reducd and limit the overall amount of time in

:38:37. > :38:45.detention in this country. Hf we could hear that, I think melbers on

:38:46. > :38:48.all sides would be reassured. Thank you, Madam Deputy Spe`ker and

:38:49. > :38:54.I am delighted to follow thd honourable member for Bedford. I

:38:55. > :38:59.think his view represents the all-party consensus on this as does

:39:00. > :39:03.the range of support from both sides for new clause 13. They will

:39:04. > :39:07.severely reduce the remarks I was going to make because I am keen the

:39:08. > :39:12.Minister should have an opportunity to respond to them but I want to

:39:13. > :39:17.underline the range of support for the engagement in the enquiry which

:39:18. > :39:23.I was privileged to be vice,chair of, led by Sarah Tevet which the

:39:24. > :39:32.honourable member has referred to. We had members of all partids from

:39:33. > :39:36.both houses, a depth of expdrience reflected in a former warlord, a

:39:37. > :39:41.former chief inspector of prisons, and we were unanimous having heard

:39:42. > :39:46.evidence over eight months. But the introduction of a time when an

:39:47. > :39:51.indefinite detention was ovdrdue -- time-limit. It was reflected in the

:39:52. > :39:59.will of this House when we debated it on September the 10th and new

:40:00. > :40:03.clause 13 looks to bring thd will of the House into this Bill, it is not

:40:04. > :40:09.a controversial proposal. It will end this country into line with most

:40:10. > :40:15.of the other countries in Etrope. And it is not a party list called

:40:16. > :40:20.oppose or because the concerns we have over the growth of the

:40:21. > :40:25.detention is something that happened under successive governments --

:40:26. > :40:29.party political proposal. It is something that needs to be

:40:30. > :40:41.addressed. I would share just one of the many stories we heard.

:40:42. > :40:49.I spoke to a young man from the disputed territory between Cameroon

:40:50. > :40:54.and Nigeria, the was traffic at 16 where he was beaten, raped `nd

:40:55. > :40:57.tortured. He managed to esc`pe and make his way to Heathrow ushng a

:40:58. > :41:01.false passport because he w`s desperate. That passport was

:41:02. > :41:05.discovered on arrival and hd was detained, we asked how long he had

:41:06. > :41:11.been detained and he said it was three years. Three years in an

:41:12. > :41:15.immigration removal centre. That detention conflicts with thd three

:41:16. > :41:19.stated aims of the Home Offhce, those being trafficked should not be

:41:20. > :41:24.detained, those who have bedn tortured should not be detahned and

:41:25. > :41:27.those should be detained for the shortest period. In the new clause

:41:28. > :41:36.13, we want to address the will of the house with that issue. Ht is not

:41:37. > :41:39.simply a case of the impact of indefinite detention has on those

:41:40. > :41:43.detained and we heard powerful evidence on the affects on lental

:41:44. > :41:48.health and that sense of hopelessness when you don't know how

:41:49. > :41:54.long you will be held for. Laking as they said, detention was in prison.

:41:55. > :41:59.It is also expensive, costing the taxpayer more than ?36,000 per year.

:42:00. > :42:04.We recognise that is the recommendation to introduce a time

:42:05. > :42:11.limit will need a fundament`l culture change and a reliance on

:42:12. > :42:15.methods other than detention to manage the process. We lookdd at

:42:16. > :42:20.other countries which are doing this successfully. In the United States,

:42:21. > :42:26.Australia, some people are puick to hold up Australia as a model of a

:42:27. > :42:31.hardline immigration policids, they are developing for more effdctive

:42:32. > :42:41.policies in terms of immigr`tion and in the UK, a Coalition Government

:42:42. > :42:45.reduced -- produced the famhly returns process. There was no

:42:46. > :42:51.increase in app scalding. There are powerful arguments at every level to

:42:52. > :42:57.see a shift in policy and I hope that in his response, the Mhnister

:42:58. > :43:03.will commit to seeking to lhmit and reduce the time people are spending

:43:04. > :43:08.in detention. Thank you Mad`m Deputy Speaker and can I thank all of the

:43:09. > :43:11.honourable and Right Honour`ble members for their contributhons on a

:43:12. > :43:17.range of issues this afternoon which have highlighted the concerns,

:43:18. > :43:20.passion and interest that so many people have shown throughout the

:43:21. > :43:22.consideration of this bill. I think that so many people have shown

:43:23. > :43:26.throughout the consideration of this bill. I over the last hour `nd 5

:43:27. > :43:30.minutes has underlined the hnterest and focused and it is important the

:43:31. > :43:35.house has been able to debate in this way. I want to start mx

:43:36. > :43:38.comments in relation to this issue of immigration detention whhch has

:43:39. > :43:44.been one of the key elements of the debate we have had. I want to

:43:45. > :43:48.underline at the outset that the Home Office has a policy to

:43:49. > :43:54.safeguard against unnecessary or arbitrary detention, the prdsumption

:43:55. > :43:59.is in favour of liberty, cases must be considered on their individual

:44:00. > :44:03.circumstances, detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest

:44:04. > :44:08.period necessary. And I think in saying that, it goes to the heart of

:44:09. > :44:15.some of the elements that are contained in the new clause 13 which

:44:16. > :44:19.has been put forward by my friend, the member for Enfield Southgate. It

:44:20. > :44:28.is about a system that is efficient and effective but also treats those

:44:29. > :44:32.within it with dignity and respect. I would just like to finish this and

:44:33. > :44:36.then I will allow some interventions, I want to set out

:44:37. > :44:43.that the Home Office is conducting detailed analysis of the purposes

:44:44. > :44:47.behind that, going to that policy that I have underlined and looking

:44:48. > :44:52.at the checks and balances hn the system to see we have a mord

:44:53. > :44:58.efficient and effective process to see that people are removed more

:44:59. > :45:02.swiftly, speedily and how this sits within an overall framework of

:45:03. > :45:07.removal. I think it is accepted in this house that detention does play

:45:08. > :45:11.an important role in seeing that we manage immigration and managing

:45:12. > :45:16.people for that removal but it has to be with removal at its focus

:45:17. > :45:21.Yes, there will be certain groups, foreign national offenders, some

:45:22. > :45:25.cases where it might be nathonal security cases where detenthon might

:45:26. > :45:30.be needed for a slightly longer period but always with that focus

:45:31. > :45:35.that there is the realistic prospect of detention taking place. So I can

:45:36. > :45:42.say to the house that we will be coming back to the house in the New

:45:43. > :45:45.Year, the intent is before the bill has passed through both houses,

:45:46. > :45:49.setting out a broader piece of work that we are currently undertaking as

:45:50. > :45:53.well obviously, in respect of Stephen Shaw on issues of

:45:54. > :45:59.vulnerability that go to sole of the other amendments and we intdnd to

:46:00. > :46:04.respond to that and lay that before the house before the ul starts is

:46:05. > :46:08.committee session in the Hotse of Lords and setting out proposals for

:46:09. > :46:11.a new detained fast track which I suspended because I was not

:46:12. > :46:17.satisfied that the necessarx safeguards were in place. It is that

:46:18. > :46:22.sense of how we construct an efficient and effective detdntion

:46:23. > :46:25.policy and it goes to the issues I highlighted of considering cases on

:46:26. > :46:31.the merits but using detenthon sparingly and for the shortdst

:46:32. > :46:38.period necessary, consistent with our policy and having that tpheld. I

:46:39. > :46:47.am grateful to the Minister, does he agree that the issues in cl`use 13,

:46:48. > :46:51.does he agree with me having set out the policy as carefully as he did

:46:52. > :46:55.that it is consistent with the principle we should seek to limit

:46:56. > :46:59.and reduce the time spent in immigration detention. As I said in

:47:00. > :47:02.my comments, the current Hole Office policy is to see that detention must

:47:03. > :47:07.be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. This is

:47:08. > :47:12.why I think the work we are doing to have a more efficient and effective

:47:13. > :47:15.system and consistent with our obligations is absolutely consistent

:47:16. > :47:21.with those themes that are redolent in paragraphs the two E of the new

:47:22. > :47:25.clause 13, where I draw the difference that I think there should

:47:26. > :47:29.be a 28 day time period does not advance that. I think that hs a

:47:30. > :47:35.blunt instrument that does not take into account the range of dhfferent

:47:36. > :47:40.circumstances that I here for foreign national offenders, those

:47:41. > :47:45.who may not be compliant in issues we put upon them and there hs a

:47:46. > :47:48.case-by-case basis. I do undertake to the house that it is precisely

:47:49. > :47:52.with that efficiency and effectiveness focused that we are

:47:53. > :47:57.conducting our review and whll be reverting to the house as I have

:47:58. > :48:01.outlined. I know there are ` number of other points that have bden

:48:02. > :48:04.highlighted during this deb`te, in relation to the right to rent, the

:48:05. > :48:14.right to rent scheme this fhxed the access migrants have two finding

:48:15. > :48:19.rental properties, it has not proven difficult or burdensome for

:48:20. > :48:23.landlords but it has led to illegal migrants being apprehended, this

:48:24. > :48:28.game has been in place for one year and is working as intended. The

:48:29. > :48:31.government published a paper on the right to rent scheme, this found no

:48:32. > :48:37.hard evidence of discrimination or any barriers to local residdnts

:48:38. > :48:42.having access to the local rental sector. Removing that would take

:48:43. > :48:47.away something, the provisions relating to this bill over tenancies

:48:48. > :48:51.are to make it easier for the majority of reputable landlords to

:48:52. > :48:56.evict illegal migrant tenants and crackdown further on those landlords

:48:57. > :49:02.who do so much to damage thd sector. The offences will allow the

:49:03. > :49:07.prosecution of those who have knowingly rented to illegal migrants

:49:08. > :49:13.and those who had reasonabld cause to believe that they were rdnting to

:49:14. > :49:17.illegal migrants. We think that is the right approach but a conviction

:49:18. > :49:21.will only be possible when ht is proven to the criminal threshold

:49:22. > :49:24.beyond reasonable doubt. Thdse offences are not designed to catch

:49:25. > :49:38.out a landlord who has made a genuine mistake. There are concerns

:49:39. > :49:44.that people are not evicted without adequate notice or sufficient

:49:45. > :49:47.safeguards in place. But thdre are safeguards that already exist, the

:49:48. > :49:53.Secretary of State will onlx serve notices when she was happy that the

:49:54. > :49:57.migrant is here unlawfully `nd taken the circumstances into accotnt. If

:49:58. > :50:03.there are barriers to them leaving the UK due to matters beyond their

:50:04. > :50:11.control, they will be allowdd to remain. We talked about charities,

:50:12. > :50:17.we created what we regard it significant loophole, it cotld lead

:50:18. > :50:20.to endless quibbling about what is meant by exceeding the cost

:50:21. > :50:23.significantly and what would constitute costs. I did respond to

:50:24. > :50:30.this in committee to give assurance on a number of aspects, and how so

:50:31. > :50:33.many of the shelters would fall outside of the provisions. Our

:50:34. > :50:38.concern is that rogue landlords would take advantage of that and we

:50:39. > :50:44.would not want to create such a loophole. During the debate in

:50:45. > :50:47.committee, there were strong support from also hides about the creation

:50:48. > :50:51.of the directorate which I think has been mentioned today, the dhrector

:50:52. > :50:55.role has been set out in thd bill and they will set out the strategy

:50:56. > :50:58.to avoid exhortation and noncompliance across the spdctrum

:50:59. > :51:03.but there is a difference bdtween the role of the director and that of

:51:04. > :51:11.the anti-slavery Commissiondr. When you look at all of the aspects of

:51:12. > :51:16.enforcement strategy, we will continue to reflect to see that it

:51:17. > :51:22.is appropriately framed. I would say the issue on resources, we will

:51:23. > :51:28.increase HMRC's budget by ?4 million around the issues of a national

:51:29. > :51:31.minimum wage and the director will analyse the available funds across

:51:32. > :51:36.all of the different aspects for which he or she would have

:51:37. > :51:42.responsibility for. I know on the issue of the offence that some have

:51:43. > :51:48.raised concerns about this but I would say the government only wants

:51:49. > :51:52.to prosecute, no one would want to prosecute those who had been forced

:51:53. > :51:58.to travel here for the profht of others, that goes to the he`rt. That

:51:59. > :52:06.is why it is not aimed at vhctims of slavery, in regard to the SNP

:52:07. > :52:12.amendments, we have maintained that the matter at heart here ard

:52:13. > :52:17.reserved and it is not appropriate to accept the amendments th`t have

:52:18. > :52:22.been put forward to. A proposed new clause 16 would amend them than

:52:23. > :52:26.social arrangements for those seeking financial detriment, we

:52:27. > :52:32.believe these provisions ard already covered in the bill instancd of

:52:33. > :52:37.related safeguards, we belidve they are sufficient. In relation to a

:52:38. > :52:43.review and overseas domestic workers, I can say to the house that

:52:44. > :52:46.that will be published shortly and will no doubt be subject to further

:52:47. > :52:51.consideration at this stage. But I do reiterate to members the

:52:52. > :52:55.consideration that we have given to this bill and how we have rdflected

:52:56. > :53:02.on the number of the points and I hope with the assurances I have

:53:03. > :53:08.given that members will be listening to press their amendments to the

:53:09. > :53:19.vote. Does the member wish to withdraw clause 16? Withdraw and new

:53:20. > :53:26.clause 16? Is it the pleasure of the house that new clause 16 be

:53:27. > :53:36.withdrawn? New clause 16 is withdrawn. Order, order, under the

:53:37. > :53:44.programme order, the Starmer to formally move amendment 19, that

:53:45. > :53:49.amendment 19 should be made. On the contrary, no. Division, cle`r the

:53:50. > :55:32.lobby. As many as are of the opinion, say

:55:33. > :55:34."aye". To the contrary, "no." For the eyes, Sue Heymann and Jdff

:55:35. > :01:55.Smith. Simon Newton for the noes. The ayes to the right 256. The noes

:01:56. > :09:10.to the left 312. The ayes to the right to hundred and

:09:11. > :09:16.56. Noes to the left 312. -, 15 . The noes have it, the noes have it.

:09:17. > :09:21.On Loch! We now come to amendment 35. Mr Stuart McDonald to move

:09:22. > :09:26.formally. I move formally. The question is

:09:27. > :09:34.that amendment 35 be made. @s many as are of the opinion, say "aye . To

:09:35. > :12:40.the contrary, "no.". Division! Clear the lobby!

:12:41. > :12:52.The question is, should amendment 35 be made? Tell us for the ayds. Tell

:12:53. > :21:18.us for the noes. Order! Order! The ayes to the

:21:19. > :21:28.right, 257, the nose to the left, 309.

:21:29. > :21:44.The ayes to the right, 257, the noes to the left, 309, the noes have it.

:21:45. > :21:50.The noes have it. Unlock. Wd now come to government new clause three,

:21:51. > :21:57.with which it would be convdnient to consider government new clatses four

:21:58. > :22:05.to seven, 11, amendment 29, government amendment five and six

:22:06. > :22:10.amendments 31, 40, 32, 42, government amendment is 8-12,

:22:11. > :22:21.government amendments three to 7, new clauses two, ten, 14 and 15 and

:22:22. > :22:30.amendments 39 and 36. Government amendments three and four and

:22:31. > :22:40.amendments 27, 28, 34, one, 37 and 38. Minister to move governlent new

:22:41. > :22:45.clause three, Mr James brokdn jaw. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move

:22:46. > :22:50.to clause three, we turn in this part of the debate to amendlents and

:22:51. > :22:54.new clauses concerning the `sylum system and the arrangements made for

:22:55. > :23:00.the support of failed asylul seekers who the courts agreed do not need

:23:01. > :23:03.our protection. The crisis hn Syria and Evans in the Middle East, North

:23:04. > :23:07.Africa and beyond have seen an unprecedented numbers of migrants

:23:08. > :23:12.and asylum seekers in Europd, some have reached the UK via northern

:23:13. > :23:19.France including many unaccompanied asylum seekers and children. There

:23:20. > :23:26.are now nearly 1000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the care

:23:27. > :23:31.of Kent council. I would like to put on my record, my thanks to `ll of

:23:32. > :23:34.those in Kent and all of thd officers and those engaged hn the

:23:35. > :23:40.way they have responded to this challenge. In our judgment, a

:23:41. > :23:45.national response is requirdd. Additional funding has been made

:23:46. > :23:47.available to local authorithes who take on responsibilities for

:23:48. > :23:51.unaccompanied asylum seeking children from Kent, we hope the

:23:52. > :23:58.dispersal arrangements put hn place will remain voluntary. However we

:23:59. > :24:03.have tabled new clauses, 3.27 and government amendments five `nd six

:24:04. > :24:08.to underpin the voluntary dhsposal arrangements and possibly to enforce

:24:09. > :24:13.them, but we see this as a backstop power. We want the transfer of

:24:14. > :24:21.unaccompanied asylum seeking children from one county to another.

:24:22. > :24:29.Providing information about children in their con, that this will inform

:24:30. > :24:38.the transfer arrangements, dnabled the Secretary of State to look at

:24:39. > :24:43.written reasons for refusing an unaccompanied asylum seekers trial.

:24:44. > :24:48.To enable the provisions to be extended across the UK by rdgulation

:24:49. > :24:53.subject to the draft procedtre informed by further dialogud with

:24:54. > :24:59.the devolved administrations. We take our responsibility -- we take

:25:00. > :25:02.our responsibilities seriously for unaccompanied asylum seekers

:25:03. > :25:06.children, we want more of an equitable distribution across the

:25:07. > :25:07.country and the welfare of vulnerable children would continue

:25:08. > :25:22.to be safeguarded. Under the education regulathons 2011

:25:23. > :25:24.governing access to student loans in England, British citizens including

:25:25. > :25:28.those returning to the UK from overseas and most other grotps must

:25:29. > :25:33.restrict three years ordinary residence before they qualify and we

:25:34. > :25:40.think that is the right benchmark for migrant workers with lilited

:25:41. > :25:47.life to remain or an outstanding stay. So it may encompass p`yment of

:25:48. > :25:51.student tuition fees for migrant care leavers who do not need student

:25:52. > :25:57.support regulations. Those payments normally are at the International

:25:58. > :26:02.student rates ranging from ?12, 00 to ?15,000 payday in most c`ses and

:26:03. > :26:11.even can place significant pressure on local authority budgets. The

:26:12. > :26:15.actress chicks access to local authority support for those without

:26:16. > :26:21.immigration status and schedule nine simplifies this. Eight to 16 makes

:26:22. > :26:27.technical improvements to those provisions. There is a UK whde

:26:28. > :26:32.framework so the regulations may make equivalent changes across the

:26:33. > :26:36.UK. This will be informed bx further dialogue with the devolved

:26:37. > :26:41.administrations. A number of other amendments have been grouped in this

:26:42. > :26:46.particular debate and so perhaps I can make initial comments btt

:26:47. > :26:51.reflect and respond further in the light of the comments made.

:26:52. > :26:54.Amendments 29 and 40 would reverse the reforms made by scheduld eight

:26:55. > :26:59.the support provided to failed asylum seekers and other illegal

:27:00. > :27:04.migrants. These reflect a clear difference of principle which I

:27:05. > :27:08.think was clear throughout the debate during the course of

:27:09. > :27:12.committee stage. It is not appropriate for public monex to be

:27:13. > :27:15.used to support illegal migrants including failed asylum seekers who

:27:16. > :27:21.can leave the UK and should do so. Schedule eight will limit the

:27:22. > :27:24.availability of such support consistent with our international

:27:25. > :27:29.obligations and remove incentives for those to remain in UK whth

:27:30. > :27:34.lawful basis. The system of support in the immigration and Asyltm act to

:27:35. > :27:38.discharge obligations to asxlum seekers in our judgment is often

:27:39. > :27:43.used to support those whose cases have failed and who have no lawful

:27:44. > :27:48.basis to remain in the UK. On the 31st of March 2015, we provhded

:27:49. > :27:51.support to an estimated 15,000 failed asylum seekers and their

:27:52. > :27:56.dependents and that cost an estimated ?73 million. We bdlieve

:27:57. > :28:01.this is wrong in principle `nd that is why those who have children with

:28:02. > :28:05.them when a claim is rejectdd will no longer be treated as thotgh they

:28:06. > :28:11.are still asylum seekers and will not be other doubles for support

:28:12. > :28:16.under the act. -- eligible. Section four will be repealed and stpport is

:28:17. > :28:21.only offered if there is a genuine obstacle preventing their ddparture

:28:22. > :28:24.when the appeal rights are exhausted. I know there was a great

:28:25. > :28:30.deal of discussion during the committee in respect of the 200

:28:31. > :28:35.pilot. Points were made George the committee as to why that cotld be

:28:36. > :28:42.provided in evidence as to why this approach might not work. I tnderline

:28:43. > :28:47.why there is a difference. Firstly, the onus is on the Home Offhce to

:28:48. > :28:54.show families now not cooperating is removed. And under the 1999 act a

:28:55. > :28:57.family has to show a genuind obstacle to their departure at the

:28:58. > :29:05.point they have exhausted appeal rights. The 2005 pilot involved a

:29:06. > :29:08.wildly correspondence based process and the new approach involvds a

:29:09. > :29:13.manager process of involvemdnt and engagement with you for a tdam

:29:14. > :29:17.following the end of the appeal recess to discuss their sittation

:29:18. > :29:23.and the consequences of not leaving the UK -- process. And when we deem

:29:24. > :29:27.circumstances have changed, it is recognised tax payers should not

:29:28. > :29:33.support illegal migrants who could and should leave the UK. Under the

:29:34. > :29:38.bill, asylum seekers refuse support under section 95 and they whll

:29:39. > :29:47.retain their right of appeal. That is extended to those who refuse

:29:48. > :29:51.support and a fresh asylum claim. There is no right of appeal to those

:29:52. > :29:56.failed asylum seekers because they said genuine obstacles prevdnt their

:29:57. > :30:00.departure from the UK when they have exhausted their appeal rights

:30:01. > :30:04.against the refusal of asyltm. Examples of genuine obstacld would

:30:05. > :30:08.be where medical evidence shows the person is unfit to travel or there

:30:09. > :30:13.is evidence an application for the necessary travel documents has been

:30:14. > :30:16.submitted and is still outstanding. These are straightforward m`tters of

:30:17. > :30:21.fact which do not require a right of appeal, I give way.

:30:22. > :30:28.Would he agree that when it comes to children, if parents will not

:30:29. > :30:35.because they cannot return, those children face genuine obstacles to

:30:36. > :30:38.returning and those obstaclds are in effect their parents and we should

:30:39. > :30:47.support those children becatse they have absolutely no choice?

:30:48. > :30:51.Absolutely, we had detailed and considerate debate in committee

:30:52. > :30:57.which she was party to. It hs besides the white family returns

:30:58. > :31:02.process around this so we assist and work with families to help their

:31:03. > :31:08.return and she will record the debates we had around the stpport

:31:09. > :31:11.that can still be made available by local authorities in respect of

:31:12. > :31:16.destitution cases. There is the potential for support still to be

:31:17. > :31:20.available. As we still move as part of that process to assist f`milies

:31:21. > :31:24.in their entirety with the appropriate safeguards to sde they

:31:25. > :31:29.are returned if the family do not have the right to remain in the UK.

:31:30. > :31:38.And the appeal statistics on Asylum support do not give a picture. In

:31:39. > :31:42.August 20 37% of appeals were dismissed, 41% were allowed. In many

:31:43. > :31:45.cases, because the person only provided in their appeal thd

:31:46. > :31:50.evidence required for support to be granted. Many of the remainder were

:31:51. > :31:53.admitted for reconsideration and withdrawn and many cases in the

:31:54. > :31:57.light of new evidence provided in appeal. Few appeals related to

:31:58. > :32:01.whether there was a practic`l obstacle to departure from the UK

:32:02. > :32:06.and the previous chief inspdctor of borders and immigration found in his

:32:07. > :32:10.July 2014 report that 89% of refusal is reasonable based on the dvidence

:32:11. > :32:19.available at that time. Amendments 42 to 45 versus the support for

:32:20. > :32:22.adult migrant care leavers. Under leaving Keleti Station. Even though

:32:23. > :32:28.that applications and appeals have been refused. These changes are

:32:29. > :32:31.wrong in principle. Public loney should not be used to support

:32:32. > :32:36.illegal migrants including failed asylum seekers who can and should

:32:37. > :32:40.leave the UK. The amendments create obvious incentives for unaccompanied

:32:41. > :32:42.children to come to the UK `nd often use dangerous travel routes

:32:43. > :32:49.controlled by smugglers and traffickers. We speak here of

:32:50. > :32:53.adults. If asylum claims have been refused, automatic access to further

:32:54. > :32:57.support from the local authorities should cease at that point. The bill

:32:58. > :33:02.makes appropriate provision for support before they leave the UK. A

:33:03. > :33:05.member two allows a mission to work when an outstanding claim h`s been

:33:06. > :33:10.outstanding after six months and remove the caveat any delay must not

:33:11. > :33:14.of the making of the asylum seeker and lift restrictions on thd

:33:15. > :33:19.employment available. As we debated, we do not consider this to be

:33:20. > :33:24.sensible, we met our public commitment to side straightforward

:33:25. > :33:29.asylum claims before April 2014 by March the 31st 2015 and to decide

:33:30. > :33:35.straightforward claims after April 2014 within six months. Abott 8 % of

:33:36. > :33:38.cases are straightforward. We judged this policy strikes the right

:33:39. > :33:41.balance and of a claim remahns undecided after 12 months for

:33:42. > :33:46.reasons outside their control, the person can apply for permission to

:33:47. > :33:51.work and our judgment of thhs is fair and reasonable and consistent

:33:52. > :33:55.with EU law. The Minister talks about making

:33:56. > :34:01.regulations and about skill requirements. Would he not `gree the

:34:02. > :34:05.bill should recognise the dhstinct skills requirements of Wales in

:34:06. > :34:08.dealing with asylum claims `nd able the Welsh government to provide

:34:09. > :34:15.input into Home Office and immigration policy? I am afraid I do

:34:16. > :34:22.not, on the basis immigration is a reserved matter. But the honourable

:34:23. > :34:26.lady made the aware that thd migration advisory committed does

:34:27. > :34:30.analyse issues around differences between the countries of thd UK and

:34:31. > :34:34.regional differences. And so for example in relation to Scotland

:34:35. > :34:38.there is a separate Scottish shortage occupation list. There is

:34:39. > :34:43.an ability to reflect variations across the UK in assessing the

:34:44. > :34:50.evidence and in terms of assessing policy. I do want to come onto

:34:51. > :34:54.clause 11 which would widen the scope for refugee family retnion. I

:34:55. > :34:59.am aware of the calls from the refugee Council and others for this.

:35:00. > :35:04.We recognise families may bdcome fragmented because of the n`ture of

:35:05. > :35:08.complex and persecution and the speed and manner in which those

:35:09. > :35:12.often flee their country of origin. Our policy allows immediate family

:35:13. > :35:19.members and a person with ldft cash with refugee life or humanitarian

:35:20. > :35:23.detect action -- protection like a spouse or partner and 18 who formed

:35:24. > :35:27.part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country to

:35:28. > :35:33.reunite in the UK. Immigrathon rules allow for the sponsorship of other

:35:34. > :35:37.family members. Some EU countries require up to two years lawful

:35:38. > :35:41.residence before a refugee becomes eligible and impose time

:35:42. > :35:48.restrictions on how quickly family members must apply once the sponsor

:35:49. > :35:53.becomes eligible. Have granted over 21,000 family reunion visas over

:35:54. > :35:57.five years -- we have. Widening the criteria would not be practhcal or

:35:58. > :36:06.sustainable, it would be a significant factor potentially. On

:36:07. > :36:12.how the UK may be viewed in terms of different jurisdictions as to where

:36:13. > :36:18.to make asylum claims and undermine the wider asylum strategy. H would

:36:19. > :36:21.also underlined that some h`ve said, have we implemented the Dublin

:36:22. > :36:26.Regulation is? In our judgmdnt, we have. The challenge is to gdt family

:36:27. > :36:31.members to make claims withhn the EU to establish links operating within

:36:32. > :36:35.Dublin and that is often an impediment in the way of sole of

:36:36. > :36:39.those who may be entitled and need to make that claim in the ET

:36:40. > :36:43.country. I will give way to the honourable lady. Would he not accept

:36:44. > :36:49.the definition of family is incredible tight and cruel for those

:36:50. > :36:54.with siblings and children over 18 and he says it is not effichent or

:36:55. > :36:58.effective but it is one of the most effective ways to grant mord refugee

:36:59. > :37:01.status to people who will not put a big pressure onto services because

:37:02. > :37:07.they will be looked after to a great extent by their families.

:37:08. > :37:10.I recognise the manner in which she advances her point. Our judgment is

:37:11. > :37:15.that the policy is struck in the right basis, that we do havd family

:37:16. > :37:23.resettlement and in certain circumstances, older relatives may

:37:24. > :37:26.exist, there may be issues relating to illness and medical need that

:37:27. > :37:31.allow for greater flexibility within the rules. From our standpohnt on

:37:32. > :37:35.the steps we are taking in respect of resettlement, it is about that

:37:36. > :37:40.assessment of former abilitx and how that is very much prevalent in the

:37:41. > :37:46.approach we take through thd camps and how we deal with resettlement. I

:37:47. > :37:50.know the right honourable l`dy has put her name to this amendmdnt and I

:37:51. > :37:56.would be delighted to give way. Can I press on the cases being dxcluded

:37:57. > :37:59.by the rules we have? A casd raised with me for example of a falily of

:38:00. > :38:04.refugees from Syria who are here but have a 19-year-old daughter, they're

:38:05. > :38:09.younger children are here, ` 19-year-old daughter still hn

:38:10. > :38:13.Lebanon unable to join them even though she is still a refugde from

:38:14. > :38:18.Syria because she is over 18. That surely feels wrong, and as ` result

:38:19. > :38:24.they worry they may have to pay people smugglers and traffickers to

:38:25. > :38:31.try and get her to the UK, with huge risk and breaking the law as well.

:38:32. > :38:34.As she knows, the current regulations are framed in a way that

:38:35. > :38:39.allows for resettlement of children under the age of 18 and the judgment

:38:40. > :38:46.is that is the right framing of this. If adults looking for

:38:47. > :38:49.protection, they can use thd normal routes through claiming asylum in

:38:50. > :38:56.other countries and we do not think resettlement should be extended the

:38:57. > :38:59.armed current framework. A appreciate, there are exceptions

:39:00. > :39:03.that can reside around this especially when we have seen cases

:39:04. > :39:09.where there may be older relatives who have illness and the rules can

:39:10. > :39:15.operate in a way that does `llow officers to take those factors into

:39:16. > :39:19.account. Clearly, cases are examined on a case-by-case basis and looking

:39:20. > :39:25.at whether life outside the rules may be a prep work. But I ghve way

:39:26. > :39:29.again. What is the option for that 19-year-old? So many other similar

:39:30. > :39:34.cases, where do she go? Does she get a vote to Greece and live there The

:39:35. > :39:41.Dublin arrangement is not working. You arrived in Greece and Italy It

:39:42. > :39:45.is not working. What does hd say to that 19-year-old? We think the

:39:46. > :39:55.Dublin arrangement is the rhght approach to provide answers to see

:39:56. > :39:59.across the EU. To deal with the important issues of what sole have

:40:00. > :40:05.coined asylum shopping, the ability to choose what jurisdiction you

:40:06. > :40:11.claim asylum within. The kex element is that we get a stable Syrha. Those

:40:12. > :40:15.in the camps see that futurd and get support there and that is why our

:40:16. > :40:20.response in relation to hum`nitarian protection, the ?1.1 billion this

:40:21. > :40:25.Government has committed absolutely matters and that is not simply about

:40:26. > :40:28.direct humanitarian protecthon, it is about ensuring we look at

:40:29. > :40:32.education and we get that sdnse of hope and purpose and we end up with

:40:33. > :40:42.a stable Syria where people can return as quickly as possible.

:40:43. > :40:54.New clause to macro hopes to extend the number of foreign national

:40:55. > :40:57.offenders to return to their country. We have statistics that

:40:58. > :41:02.showed 5991 foreign national offenders were removed from the UK

:41:03. > :41:06.in the last year, the proposed change would mean the Secretary of

:41:07. > :41:08.State would be required to sign a deportation order for a fordign

:41:09. > :41:17.criminal if they receive a sentence of six months. It is alreadx time

:41:18. > :41:23.for them to consider 12 months if they would not cause harm. She would

:41:24. > :41:30.take action in any case where she would discern that it was conducive

:41:31. > :41:37.for the nation to do so. Turning to new clauses ten and 12, I would make

:41:38. > :41:41.the point that while I recognise perhaps the intention behind the

:41:42. > :41:47.amendments, we may not judgd they are appropriate. It it wants to

:41:48. > :41:51.amend those with criminal s`nctions who have entered without legal

:41:52. > :41:52.authority but there are crilinal sanctions and removal and

:41:53. > :41:57.deportation powers to deal with illegal migrants. The act of 19th

:41:58. > :42:08.and the one in particular cdnts at various criminal actions for illegal

:42:09. > :42:13.migrants including overstayhng. I am very grateful to my right honourable

:42:14. > :42:19.friend, does he accept that in 013, the last year I got the statistics,

:42:20. > :42:22.there were only 72 convictions in both the Magistrates' Court and the

:42:23. > :42:27.Crown Court for all of thesd offences under section 24, does he

:42:28. > :42:32.think that shows whether thd government is taking it serhously

:42:33. > :42:36.enough. The point that I highlight to the honourable gentleman, as I

:42:37. > :42:41.hope I indicated, I pay tribute to him in the way he has sought to

:42:42. > :42:46.advance these issues and to underline the need for us to retain

:42:47. > :42:49.focus on the removal of those who are not here with lawful authority

:42:50. > :42:55.and address those who have thoughts to come in to the UK through

:42:56. > :43:00.clandestinely means. The most effective way to deal with that to

:43:01. > :43:03.having an effective process for removal which is why we are

:43:04. > :43:08.legislating on the way we are with this bill and a number of dhfferent

:43:09. > :43:13.means and to highlight some of the work we debated in the prevhous

:43:14. > :43:17.section of the report stage around the work we are undertaking to

:43:18. > :43:21.ensure we have a speedy and more efficient and effective use of

:43:22. > :43:27.detention and how that plays into a more effective process for removal

:43:28. > :43:31.more generally. There are mdasures there but I think his points are

:43:32. > :43:34.driving more fundamentally towards seeing that we have more efficient

:43:35. > :43:40.and effective removal which is something I absolutely shard with

:43:41. > :43:46.him. New clause 12... Daehlh I am very grateful for him giving way,

:43:47. > :43:49.going back to clause two, which related to the deportation of

:43:50. > :43:54.non-British citizens who have committed offences it, I am

:43:55. > :43:57.persuaded by his response to the new clause proposed by my honourable

:43:58. > :44:03.friend, could he advise the house about the issues, a limited number

:44:04. > :44:08.of countries for which it is Jimmy difficult to us to deport pdople in

:44:09. > :44:14.the circumstances, our moves we have seen with Jamaican prison rdlevant

:44:15. > :44:23.to this decision or how those countries progress. He makes an

:44:24. > :44:29.important point. The issue of prisoner conditions is one that is

:44:30. > :44:33.relevant and transfer agreelents and bilateral arrangements we h`ve in

:44:34. > :44:36.place, there is work across government in respect to thd return

:44:37. > :44:44.of foreign national offenders in particular, which I know was a point

:44:45. > :44:49.of issue for our honourable friend for Enfield Southgate, it is that

:44:50. > :44:55.work across government of not only the Home Office but ministers from

:44:56. > :44:59.the Foreign Office and the linisters of justice and looking at these

:45:00. > :45:04.issues in the round to see what measures and mechanisms are

:45:05. > :45:09.available to us to enhance that process. I think he is right to

:45:10. > :45:13.frame the point he did in the way that he did and I can certahnly

:45:14. > :45:17.assure him and our honourable friend that it is that joined up approach

:45:18. > :45:23.that we are taking across government to use the measures available to us

:45:24. > :45:27.to enhance returns. New clatse 260 create a system requiring non-UK

:45:28. > :45:31.nationals including EU nationals seeking leave to enter and remain in

:45:32. > :45:36.the UK to retain legal authority to remain in the UK. I agree whth much

:45:37. > :45:40.of my honourable friend's thinking but in our judgment, it is seeking

:45:41. > :45:45.to curtail the free movement of EU citizens in the UK under exhsting

:45:46. > :45:49.treaty rights. I'm not sure legislation is the right wax to

:45:50. > :45:53.approach is, the immigration act 2014 limits the factors which draw

:45:54. > :45:58.is illegal migrants to the TK and tough domestic reforms to ensure

:45:59. > :46:01.controls and access to benefits and services including the NHS `nd

:46:02. > :46:08.social housing are among thd tightest in Europe. We belidve the

:46:09. > :46:10.way to bring about real change is through effective negotiation with

:46:11. > :46:17.the European Union. My honotrable friend will be well aware of the

:46:18. > :46:20.letter that the prime ministers sent to the president of the European

:46:21. > :46:27.Council setting out that approach and the broader stance we sdek to

:46:28. > :46:29.take. New clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to amend the

:46:30. > :46:35.minimum income requirements for sponsoring a non-EU national partner

:46:36. > :46:39.at any -- and any pending children to the UK, this would underline the

:46:40. > :46:43.impact of the minimum incomd threshold which the courts have

:46:44. > :46:49.agreed correctly reflects the public interest in control immigration to

:46:50. > :46:59.safeguard the British econoly rather than them becoming a burden. They

:47:00. > :47:03.can still access income rel`ted benefits but at that level ht would

:47:04. > :47:08.not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer once they h`d full

:47:09. > :47:12.access to welfare benefits, it would also provide less support for the

:47:13. > :47:17.migrant partners integration into society and that is not an `dequate

:47:18. > :47:24.basis for sustainable familx migration. Could he clarify his

:47:25. > :47:32.position on the rules which prevent potential income from a spotse not

:47:33. > :47:36.being taken into account, that income is not a burden on the

:47:37. > :47:42.taxpayer, why is it still the government position that such income

:47:43. > :47:45.should be excluded? As I thhnk I have indicated, it is to crdate that

:47:46. > :47:52.long-term stable position on what may be considered a burden. I would

:47:53. > :47:58.certainly underline to the gentleman that we continue to look at the

:47:59. > :48:03.continued roles and what is and what isn't taken into account. I am happy

:48:04. > :48:07.to reflect further in respect to the specific point is he is

:48:08. > :48:16.highlighting. We have had this approach challenged in the courts

:48:17. > :48:22.and the monetary threshold has been upheld but I want to ensure that we

:48:23. > :48:26.continue to analyse and expdrience in evidence in respect of this but

:48:27. > :48:30.our judgment in how we assess what is and what is not counted hs right

:48:31. > :48:35.but we will continue to reflect upon that. New clause 15 requires the

:48:36. > :48:44.Secretary of State to amend the rules for non-dependent rel`tives.

:48:45. > :48:49.Again, this would represent a significant dilation of the reforms

:48:50. > :48:52.of 2012, the room for adult dependent relatives was reformed

:48:53. > :48:56.because of the significant NHS and social care costs which can be

:48:57. > :49:00.associated with these cases. It now provides for those in need of care

:49:01. > :49:05.but not for those who would simply prefer to live in the UK. The family

:49:06. > :49:09.immigration rules we reformdd in the last parliament are having the right

:49:10. > :49:12.impact in our judgment and restoring confidence in this part of the

:49:13. > :49:16.immigration system and personal care needs can be met in some cotntries

:49:17. > :49:24.of origin, it is not right to allow them to travel to this country for

:49:25. > :49:30.that purpose. Is it not the case that many of the frictions that are

:49:31. > :49:34.created between immigrants `nd settled communities come about

:49:35. > :49:38.because of the fear of abusd of the health and care system and having a

:49:39. > :49:43.clear framework where the lhmits of what we will and will not accept our

:49:44. > :49:49.explicit will go some way to calm the nerves of the hosting

:49:50. > :49:52.communities about new entrants to their areas? I thank my honourable

:49:53. > :49:56.friend and I think that is what we have done. And also confidence in

:49:57. > :50:01.the public more generally as to where costs should lie and

:50:02. > :50:09.understandable concerns over access to health care. On ensuring that is

:50:10. > :50:13.framed rightly and that is why we introduced the immigration `nd

:50:14. > :50:17.health surcharge during the course of the last Parliament. Amendment 39

:50:18. > :50:21.seeks to restrict the power immigration officers had to examine

:50:22. > :50:24.someone in other countries. The Solicitor General, who was `longside

:50:25. > :50:29.me on the Treasury bench during the consideration of this ill in

:50:30. > :50:32.committee, the power to exaline some in country is essential, qudstioning

:50:33. > :50:37.persons where officers have been alerted they have been seen climbing

:50:38. > :50:42.out of lorries on motorways were at service stations and are suspected

:50:43. > :50:48.of coming into the UK. Officers do not conduct speculative spot checks.

:50:49. > :50:52.The officer must have inforlation that causes them to question whether

:50:53. > :50:59.someone has the right to be in the UK as set out in the 1987 c`se of

:51:00. > :51:04.Singh and Hammond, this reflects the judgment and conducting and in

:51:05. > :51:08.country examination, immigr`tion officers must have a reason`ble

:51:09. > :51:12.suspicion that a person is `n immigration offender and thdy must

:51:13. > :51:18.be able to justify that reasoning. If it is limited only to thd point

:51:19. > :51:24.of entry, the ability to two conduct operations would be hampered or it

:51:25. > :51:27.could risk unnecessary arrests. Turning to government amendlents

:51:28. > :51:33.three and four, these minor and technical amendments replacd the

:51:34. > :51:37.term strip search with full search to allay concerns that the person is

:51:38. > :51:42.completely naked during such a search when this is not the case.

:51:43. > :51:49.The term "full search" or adequately reflects the nature of the power.

:51:50. > :51:54.The amendment to remove the possibility of these searchds, where

:51:55. > :51:59.they are searching for nationality documents. As my right honotrable

:52:00. > :52:04.and learn at friend these are listed general said in committee, the

:52:05. > :52:10.reality of detention is that quite often that a low clothing is where

:52:11. > :52:17.items may be concealed. It lay therefore be necessary to rdmove the

:52:18. > :52:22.clothes of the detainees to locate documentation and other itels. Of

:52:23. > :52:25.course, such a power must bd governed by appropriate safdguards

:52:26. > :52:30.and used only where necessary and the power may not be exercised in

:52:31. > :52:34.the presence of another det`ined person all someone of the opposite

:52:35. > :52:44.sex, removing the ability altogether would create an easy way for

:52:45. > :52:50.detainees to thwart removal efforts. Clause 34, it allows human right

:52:51. > :52:53.claims and to petition cases to be certified to require an appdal to be

:52:54. > :53:01.brought from outside the UK where to do so would not cause seriots harm.

:53:02. > :53:05.Clause 34 extends that power to apply to all human rights claims,

:53:06. > :53:09.the effect Amendment 27 would be to remove clause 34 from the bhll,

:53:10. > :53:13.extending the power to all human rights claims is a government

:53:14. > :53:17.manifesto commitment and buhlds on the success of section 94 bd

:53:18. > :53:22.introduced by the immigration act in 2014 and has resulted in ovdr 2 0

:53:23. > :53:27.foreign national offenders being deported before their appeal. The

:53:28. > :53:30.Court of Appeal considered two cases concerning the operation of this

:53:31. > :53:34.power and held that the govdrnment is generally entitled to proceed on

:53:35. > :53:40.the basis that an out of cotntry appeal is fair and an effective

:53:41. > :53:42.remedy. This amendment would prevent the government from meeting its

:53:43. > :53:47.manifesto commitment over this successful power which has been

:53:48. > :53:54.recently endorsed by the Cotrt of Appeal. Amendment 28 is abott the

:53:55. > :53:59.best interests of children. Including best interest assdssments

:54:00. > :54:03.of children. This amendment is unnecessary, the intention hs to

:54:04. > :54:08.make sure that before any ddcision to certify is made, the best

:54:09. > :54:14.interest of any child affected by the situation is considered but

:54:15. > :54:18.section 55 of the citizenshhp act of 2009 already imposes a statttory

:54:19. > :54:22.duty on the Secretary of St`te to consider the best interest of any

:54:23. > :54:27.child affected by a decision to certify. In any case, when the

:54:28. > :54:30.Secretary of State is aware there is a child involved that might be

:54:31. > :54:34.affected by her decision, the Secretary of State would consider

:54:35. > :54:39.the best interests of that child as a primary consideration in deciding

:54:40. > :54:42.whether to satisfy. That is supported by published guid`nce --

:54:43. > :54:47.certify, and would take into account the situation of the case. @n

:54:48. > :54:52.language requirements and ddvolved administrations, there are ` couple

:54:53. > :54:59.of amendments, one and 34 that relate to part seven, to ensure that

:55:00. > :55:04.the public receives help, advice from puppet services in fludnt,

:55:05. > :55:08.spoken English. In Scotland, it only applies to reserved matters, consent

:55:09. > :55:12.is not required for such application but consultation is approprhate and

:55:13. > :55:14.I am grateful for the Scotthsh Government for considering the draft

:55:15. > :55:27.process and its implementathon. We should consider extension to

:55:28. > :55:30.Northern Ireland but in rel`tion to amendment one, it is defecthve

:55:31. > :55:36.because it does need to be limited to reserve powers as it is to

:55:37. > :55:39.Scotland. We need to give ftrther thought on how best to achidve the

:55:40. > :55:48.intent behind this and it is our intention to return to this in the

:55:49. > :55:53.other place. I hope those comments, the new clauses in the name of the

:55:54. > :55:59.Home Secretary will be incltded within the bill.

:56:00. > :56:02.You clause three, transfer responsibility for relevant

:56:03. > :56:07.children. The question is the new govdrnment

:56:08. > :56:13.clause three B read a second time. Keir Starmer.

:56:14. > :56:17.Thank you. Can I say in rel`tion to the new government clauses hntended

:56:18. > :56:24.to help local authorities stch as Kent deal with unaccompanied

:56:25. > :56:31.children, we support them. Whichever relevant to clauses, the fedling is

:56:32. > :56:36.clear there is a need and they should be supported. That is the

:56:37. > :56:42.extent of the agreement we will reach in this part of the ddbate. I

:56:43. > :56:48.will now turn to amendment 29 which deals with the removal of stpport

:56:49. > :56:53.for certain categories of mhgrants. Madam Deputy Speaker, this removal

:56:54. > :57:02.is wrong in principle. And very likely to be had to predict. All the

:57:03. > :57:06.evidence on this is one way. Support for families facing removal is the

:57:07. > :57:13.best means of ensuring they believe. All the evidence shows that

:57:14. > :57:17.and by support, I mean in these circumstances not only support in

:57:18. > :57:21.the terms set out in the bill at the support by way of help with

:57:22. > :57:29.obstacles, documents and with advice. It is those families

:57:30. > :57:33.supported in that brought mx -- in the Broadway that will be most

:57:34. > :57:38.likely to leave and the objdctive is achieved by having that support By

:57:39. > :57:45.contrast, withdrawing support had the opposite effect. Let's call a

:57:46. > :57:50.spade a spade. Withdrawing support here for this category of mhgrants

:57:51. > :57:57.is a threat and it is a thrdat of destitution. And that is effectively

:57:58. > :58:02.to become a means of enforchng immigration rules. All the dvidence

:58:03. > :58:09.suggests it is counter-prodtctive. The Minister mentioned the 2005

:58:10. > :58:19.pilot, confident I think th`t I would go to it myself. Therd was a

:58:20. > :58:25.pilot in 2005 at the proposhtion withdrawing support, threatdning

:58:26. > :58:31.destitution is likely to encourage people to leave and to alter

:58:32. > :58:39.behaviour. The results of that pilot were evaluated in 2006 and they were

:58:40. > :58:48.very clear. There were 116 families in the pilot, 1 family left as a

:58:49. > :58:55.result of the withdrawal of support. 12 look for help with documdnts 32

:58:56. > :59:00.families went underground. @nd nine were removed from the schemd because

:59:01. > :59:05.an analysis, their claims should not have been refused. It was considered

:59:06. > :59:10.a complete failure. It is not a pilot is ten years ago, it ht has

:59:11. > :59:16.been practised since then and successive and different government

:59:17. > :59:24.powers have accepted destitttion should not be a means of reloval

:59:25. > :59:30.because it is counter-productive. The Minister says the situation is

:59:31. > :59:33.different for two reasons. The first is that under the proposed

:59:34. > :59:41.arrangements, families would now have to prove there was no genuine

:59:42. > :59:48.obstacle, I was a genuine obstacle to removal. I am not sure how far

:59:49. > :59:51.that advances the argument, the idea the onus is on the family now to

:59:52. > :59:57.show a genuine obstacle makds it less likely they will go underground

:59:58. > :00:02.if support is withdrawn. Thdre simply is no rational link between

:00:03. > :00:08.those two propositions. And the second difference he points to is

:00:09. > :00:13.the process now will be highway not by way of correspondence but in a

:00:14. > :00:19.more engaged manner. But th`t is hard to see how that welcomd change

:00:20. > :00:25.will make a difference to the results of the 2005 pilot. Hn the

:00:26. > :00:33.end, this withdrawal with c`use that will cause hardship, it distressed,

:00:34. > :00:37.anxiety and it will be entirely counter-productive -- distrdss. That

:00:38. > :00:44.is a problem with this bill, if it is tested against its objective it

:00:45. > :00:50.does not meet the objective. If it is tested in relation to silply

:00:51. > :00:53.making the UK appear to beal -- to be more hostile, that is thd only

:00:54. > :00:58.sense in which the government is only able to advance these

:00:59. > :01:03.provisions. Destitution and the 21st-century simply should not be a

:01:04. > :01:08.means of enforcement of immhgration rules or any other rules and that

:01:09. > :01:14.what lies behind these provhsions. And in relation to children in

:01:15. > :01:17.particular, I think the House would accept children should not be

:01:18. > :01:23.subjected to at first results and impacts because of the decisions of

:01:24. > :01:27.their parents and this will visit that adverse impact on children

:01:28. > :01:35.Because they will come withhn the provision to remove support from

:01:36. > :01:37.them. And that led in the Bhll committee to great debate about

:01:38. > :01:42.whether this would simply transferred the burden from one

:01:43. > :01:47.government department to local authorities. Who in truth and in

:01:48. > :01:52.reality not going to be abld to stand by and watched destittte

:01:53. > :01:58.children in their authority unassisted and one helped. So this

:01:59. > :02:00.is wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker, in principle and it is also

:02:01. > :02:04.counter-productive and not ` provision that in the 21st-century

:02:05. > :02:09.we should be having anything at all to do with. Let me turn bridfly to

:02:10. > :02:15.the question of appeals. Beginning with the narrow issue of appeals on

:02:16. > :02:22.the question of support. Amdndments 31, 40 and 30 intends to rehnstate

:02:23. > :02:26.the right of appeal against Home Office decisions on support so this

:02:27. > :02:32.is where the Home Office has made a decision on support and it hs

:02:33. > :02:38.thought that decision is wrong. At the moment, the rate of error is

:02:39. > :02:43.very high. I think those in the household were not at 20 -- at Bill

:02:44. > :02:50.committee would be astonishdd to know it is 60% in some cases. And

:02:51. > :02:56.those other decisions which will not be able to be put right on ` simple

:02:57. > :03:02.appeal. At the Bill committde stage, the response of the Minister was

:03:03. > :03:04.that the long judicial revidw process would remain a remedy and I

:03:05. > :03:10.failed to understand then and now how it could sensible or cost

:03:11. > :03:16.efficient to remove a simpld right of appeal with a high rate of

:03:17. > :03:21.success and rely on the much more expensive judicial review bx

:03:22. > :03:25.different principles. When xou have an error rate of 60%, it is simply

:03:26. > :03:35.unacceptable to withdraw a right of appeal. At both in relation to this

:03:36. > :03:44.error rate and other arrow freights, -- error rates, the argument that

:03:45. > :03:48.some cases that are changed are changed because of addition`l

:03:49. > :03:52.information from the individual is no answer because the rate of 6 %

:03:53. > :03:58.and in relation to general `ppeals of 40, 42%, is very high, there is

:03:59. > :04:03.no evidence to suggest the lajority of them are cases without

:04:04. > :04:08.information. And whether thd individual has been advised about

:04:09. > :04:12.what information they make `vailable or not, they should not be punished

:04:13. > :04:25.by the withdrawal of support where it is inappropriate. The wider point

:04:26. > :04:32.is amendments 27 and 28. Thhs deals with the extension of appeals to a

:04:33. > :04:36.wider category of individual people who will be removed first bdfore

:04:37. > :04:44.appealed. There is a general point to make that while it may bd some

:04:45. > :04:50.court cases say these provisions will be, do not extinguish the right

:04:51. > :04:59.of appeal, there is no question they do inhibit the right of appdal. And

:05:00. > :05:07.the success rate under the current arrangement is instructed. That is a

:05:08. > :05:13.success rate of between 40% and 42%. So cases where individuals have been

:05:14. > :05:20.removed only to succeed in their appeal. I accept there will be some

:05:21. > :05:25.within that group who may wdll have succeeded earlier, had diffdrent

:05:26. > :05:31.information be made available to the authorities. But for a varidty of

:05:32. > :05:36.reasons, that may have happdned including the advice they h`ve been

:05:37. > :05:39.given. To remove first before appeal materially inhibits their rhght of

:05:40. > :05:48.appeal and it certainly shotld not be expanded. And members 27 and 28

:05:49. > :05:53.-- are members 27 and 28 in short before a decision is made to certify

:05:54. > :05:57.a claim, the best interests of any child must be considered, a specific

:05:58. > :06:04.provision to deal with a very real problem rather than the gendral

:06:05. > :06:08.provision which is already hn place. And it is materially import`nt for

:06:09. > :06:16.the children who will be impacted by the extension of these rules on

:06:17. > :06:24.appeal. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will spend time on the family

:06:25. > :06:30.reunification issues. The -, the immigration rules at the molent

:06:31. > :06:37.they are narrowly drawn and we have had an example of the injustice they

:06:38. > :06:44.can and do operate. Clause one is intended to remedy this. I `m

:06:45. > :06:50.sympathetic to it but we have put forward new clause 11 which is a

:06:51. > :06:55.wider review of the refugee family reunification rules and it has the

:06:56. > :06:59.advantage of covering the f`ilure to implement the Dublin three

:07:00. > :07:05.commensurate and it has the advantage of looking at an option

:07:06. > :07:13.for allowing British citizens to sponsor close family members --

:07:14. > :07:18.convention. And it looks at options for extending the criteria for

:07:19. > :07:25.family reunion in the way envisaged by clause one. Thank you, M`dam

:07:26. > :07:36.Deputy Speaker. I look to speak to my two ndw and

:07:37. > :07:39.clauses and can I say to thd Minister thank you for tellhng me

:07:40. > :07:44.the reasons he does not support my new clauses although he is generous

:07:45. > :07:54.enough to say he agrees with the principles behind them. The second

:07:55. > :08:00.of my new clauses, clause 12, is a new clause which could well be a

:08:01. > :08:04.blueprint for what happens `fter the country decides to leave thd

:08:05. > :08:10.European Union in the forthcoming referendum. Because that new clause

:08:11. > :08:16.sets out the way in which pdople will be able to stay in this

:08:17. > :08:22.country, people already in this country would be able to obtain the

:08:23. > :08:29.right of a residence here and would set out some associated rulds to

:08:30. > :08:35.ensure people without the rhght of residence would be the subjdct of

:08:36. > :08:39.criminal sanctions against them Before coming to that in more

:08:40. > :08:48.detail, can I refer first to new clause ten? Some of the background

:08:49. > :08:54.to this. This new clause is modelled very much -- modelled very luch on a

:08:55. > :08:57.Private members Bill which H have brought forward on a couple of

:08:58. > :09:04.occasions for debate in this House. The illegal immigrants crimhnal

:09:05. > :09:10.sanctions bill. This bill h`d the privilege of being the subjdct of an

:09:11. > :09:18.opinion poll which was condtcted by the noble lord, Lord Ashcroft, in

:09:19. > :09:27.June 2013. And the findings of that opinion poll where that 86%

:09:28. > :09:31.supported the provisions of this bill and only 9% were against them.

:09:32. > :09:38.So this is a new clause which strikes a chord with the Brhtish

:09:39. > :09:45.people. And the reason I have brought it forward again is because

:09:46. > :09:51.despite previous debates, it seems that assist X -- the statistics

:09:52. > :09:57.showing how many people get prosecuted and or convicted for

:09:58. > :10:01.offences under section 24 a of the 1971 Immigration Act, those

:10:02. > :10:07.statistics are going in the wrong direction. In 2009, the number of

:10:08. > :10:11.people proceeded against and convicted in the Magistrates' Courts

:10:12. > :10:16.and the Crown Court for offdnces against section 24 was the giddy

:10:17. > :10:34.number of 158. By 2013, the last year for which I

:10:35. > :10:37.have the figures, the number of people convicted in a Distrhct Court

:10:38. > :10:46.had fallen to six and the ntmber convicted in the Crown Court had

:10:47. > :10:53.fallen to 66, making a total of 72 convictions for a widespread range

:10:54. > :11:02.of criminal offences against our laws relating to immigration. This

:11:03. > :11:09.means that we have section 24 a of the immigration act not being

:11:10. > :11:16.enforced effectively. And mdanwhile, this bill is talking in clatse eight

:11:17. > :11:21.about adding a new section to section 24 so it will be section 24

:11:22. > :11:28.B which introduces the defence of illegal working -- the offense of

:11:29. > :11:35.people working in immigration control. One wonders whether

:11:36. > :11:41.actually this offense as well, if it is an forced as the more sit --

:11:42. > :11:46.enforced as much as the mord serious offences, whether it will do

:11:47. > :11:51.anything in substance or if it is more of a presentational issue by

:11:52. > :11:57.the government so that they can show they are doing something about this

:11:58. > :12:02.to try and win public support on that basis. I hope there will be

:12:03. > :12:06.time for my right honourabld friend to respond to this debate and

:12:07. > :12:15.explain Hani people he thinks are going to be subject to a prosecution

:12:16. > :12:23.under the new section 24 be on the offence of illegal working `nd how

:12:24. > :12:29.he can explain why there ard so few prosecutions under the existing 24

:12:30. > :12:35.a. It is always much easier Madam Deputy Speaker to go for thd people

:12:36. > :12:40.with resources and those trxing hardest to run businesses often

:12:41. > :12:46.small businesses, so we havd clause nine of this bill penalising them

:12:47. > :12:53.for employing illegal workers although they are already to an

:12:54. > :13:01.extent subject to civil pen`lties, in the 2013-14, there were 2150

:13:02. > :13:07.civil penalties for such offences. Obviously, employment of illegal

:13:08. > :13:13.workers, where those workers are themselves illegal in 's, you would

:13:14. > :13:23.think the first port of call would be to sanction the illegal hmmigrant

:13:24. > :13:28.'s rather than those they dtped into employing them. It might be that

:13:29. > :13:32.some of these fences are designed to deal with people who are in the

:13:33. > :13:39.United Kingdom with permisshon but subject to immigration control but

:13:40. > :13:44.that reinforces my concern. If we are trying to introduce new

:13:45. > :13:46.sanctions against those who are here lawfully but subject to immhgration

:13:47. > :13:55.control much surely we should be even harder on those who ard here

:13:56. > :14:02.unlawfully and are trying to avoid any immigration controls. That is

:14:03. > :14:08.the background to the new clause ten and what it does, it does not just

:14:09. > :14:17.re-enact the provisions of section 24 of the immigration act btt it

:14:18. > :14:23.includes more specific proposals which were set out in the ndw clause

:14:24. > :14:28.ten subsection four that anx person convicted of an offence unddr

:14:29. > :14:31.subsection one shall be subject to a deportation order unless thd

:14:32. > :14:36.Secretary of State deems such a deportation to be against the public

:14:37. > :14:40.interest. For the purposes of subsection two of the deportation

:14:41. > :14:44.order guide deemed to be in the public interest, unless a

:14:45. > :14:52.certificate of the country has been submitted by the Secretary of State

:14:53. > :14:56.to the court. Another probldm with the enforcement of our immigration

:14:57. > :15:03.laws is that too few people are being deported and too few people

:15:04. > :15:08.are being subject to deport`tion orders and one of the reasons for

:15:09. > :15:16.this Madam Deputy Speaker, hs that if a person is prosecuting ,-

:15:17. > :15:21.prosecuted and the authorithes seek to deport them, there is a right to

:15:22. > :15:30.appeal against deportation `nd all that entails. Quite often, the

:15:31. > :15:35.authorities would prefer not to deport a person or seek to deport

:15:36. > :15:41.them but would prefer to allow them to lie low. So there is a pdrverse

:15:42. > :15:47.incentive for people to lie low in our system as we know that there may

:15:48. > :15:54.be half a million illegal ilmigrant is currently in the country and that

:15:55. > :16:00.is very much a ballpark figtre. Against the numbers of half a

:16:01. > :16:07.million illegal migrants, the prosecution and conviction of 7 in

:16:08. > :16:13.2013 seems paltry in the extreme. And one is entitled to ask the

:16:14. > :16:17.government" can we take you seriously? " When you are doing so

:16:18. > :16:24.little to deal with those pdople who are here illegally and deter others

:16:25. > :16:32.who may be tempted to come here illegally. That is why I thhnk we

:16:33. > :16:37.need to have a new offense of the in the United Kingdom without legal

:16:38. > :16:43.authority. That offense means that the prosecution does not have to

:16:44. > :16:49.prove how the person came into the United Kingdom, their mere presence

:16:50. > :16:53.in the United Kingdom withott legal authority makes them guilty of an

:16:54. > :17:00.offence. And there is anothdr practical side to this, he said at

:17:01. > :17:07.the moment that if someone jumps out at the back of a lorry on a motorway

:17:08. > :17:12.or in a lay-by or a service station and members of the public are

:17:13. > :17:21.concerned and call the police, the invariable practice of the police is

:17:22. > :17:28.actually to say to the potential illegal migrants "you should not be

:17:29. > :17:33.here, you must go and report to the Home Office in Croydon." Thdy do not

:17:34. > :17:40.arrest them and prosecute them, the reason I am told they don't arrest

:17:41. > :17:44.them is because they do not think that the powers of prosecuthon which

:17:45. > :17:51.are currently in the immigr`tion act are adequate to ensure that it is

:17:52. > :17:56.worth their while. So inste`d of having the hassle of arresthng

:17:57. > :18:01.someone on the a 31 in my constituency who has come in

:18:02. > :18:04.illegally and has dumbed on the back of a lorry, instead of arresting

:18:05. > :18:11.that person and prosecuting them, the message being sent out so often

:18:12. > :18:17.by the police is that you should not be here, be on your way and leave

:18:18. > :18:21.the country. It is almost a similar situation Madam Deputy is bhgger to

:18:22. > :18:26.the situation I witnessed on the island of costs when I was there

:18:27. > :18:37.about a month ago where I could see people from our border forcd on

:18:38. > :18:45.secondment, they were dealing with lots of migrants who had cole across

:18:46. > :18:49.the water from Turkey, a distance of 3.5 kilometres and all that was

:18:50. > :18:56.happening to these migrants is that they were being processed, they were

:18:57. > :19:02.not being sent back to Turkdy, they were not being told they must be

:19:03. > :19:07.subject to any sanctions, all that they were being told is thex should

:19:08. > :19:12.not be in Greece and they should leave as soon as possible. Which is

:19:13. > :19:18.a completely farcical situation and frankly a waste of resources of

:19:19. > :19:22.border force people to be engaged when they do not have any powers to

:19:23. > :19:30.do anything about the illeg`l migrants coming into the European

:19:31. > :19:35.Union and into the Schengen area. Those officers would be better

:19:36. > :19:42.employed serving our own shores and borders. Madam Deputy Speakdr, that

:19:43. > :19:49.is the background to new cl`use ten, I hope that the government will

:19:50. > :19:58.start doing a lot more prosdcuting and taking the offense of bding here

:19:59. > :20:05.in the United Kingdom withott legal authority much more seriously than

:20:06. > :20:10.seems to happen at the moment. We know that another reason whx people

:20:11. > :20:15.are so attracted to the United Kingdom is that we do not h`ve any

:20:16. > :20:20.system of identity cards so people think once they have got in here

:20:21. > :20:26.unlawfully that they can lid low, sometimes for many years and carry

:20:27. > :20:37.on below the radar while sthll being illegal migrants. Turning to new

:20:38. > :20:41.clause 12, this new clause would repeal section seven of the

:20:42. > :20:46.immigration act 1988 and th`t Madam Deputy Speaker is the section of the

:20:47. > :20:52.act which effectively gives European Union citizens who are not citizens

:20:53. > :20:58.of the United Kingdom rights equivalent to citizens of the United

:20:59. > :21:02.Kingdom in relation to residents in this country. That goes to the heart

:21:03. > :21:07.of the issue of free movement of people across European Union

:21:08. > :21:14.borders. I don't think that there is a case to be made any longer for

:21:15. > :21:20.allowing EU citizens to havd a special status compared with other

:21:21. > :21:25.citizens from other parts of the world who may have, in our view a

:21:26. > :21:30.greater than entitlement to be in the country and whose presence in

:21:31. > :21:38.this country might be more conducive to the national interest. This was a

:21:39. > :21:42.subject that was much discussed yesterday by the Scottish affairs

:21:43. > :21:50.committee when it met in Abdrdeen and was discussing the subjdct of