Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I preface my remarks to this group of amending provisions by alluding to what happened in Committee. We had a very fruitful and productive series of sittings, with engaging debate and useful points being made by Members on both sides. On the many occasions, although, I think, not all, when I said that I would look further into particular matters, I have sought to do so and have tabled amending provisions, where appropriate. New clause 1 is the first example. Much disquiet and concern was expressed in Committee about the gap between the notification of someone’s leave coming to an end or being curtailed for whatever reason and the one and only time permitted under the Bill to appeal against removal initially and then all the other elements leading up to the removal. Members of the Committee were concerned, as I said, because they did not want people to be committing an immigration offence if they stayed in the UK while bringing an in-time appeal against a removal decision. That was an entirely fair point and new clause 1 was tabled in the light of those genuine concerns expressed by Opposition Members in Committee. As I said, that was characteristic of the sensible and constructive manner in which the Committee’s work was conducted. I am pleased to move new clause 1 in response. It is entirely a matter for the House authorities, but, under the broad heading of appeals, a significant number of amending provisions and amendments to them are appended that embrace a number of concerns. It is my intention—I believe that it is in order, Mr. Speaker—formally to speak to new clause 1 and then, in the fullness of time, to listen to all the concerns expressed in the debate, including the other amendments, and to respond appropriately to them. I prefer to do that, rather than pre-empt discussion by giving my view on every aspect of every other amendment in the group at this stage of our deliberations. To finish speaking to new clause 1, where a person has no leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, a decision can be made that they should be removed from the country. By virtue of section 82(2)(g) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that is an immigration decision, which gives rise to a right of appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. If the appellant has made an asylum or human rights claim while in the UK, or argues that removal would result in a breach of their rights under EU law, that appeal can be brought prior to their removal from the UK. In all other cases, any right of appeal against a decision to remove can be exercised only once the appellant has left the country. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that a person who has complied with the term of their leave—that is, who has made an unsuccessful application for further leave in time, or who has existing leave curtailed—is not liable to prosecution under section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Act 1971 as an overstayer during any period in which they can bring an in-country appeal against a decision to remove them from the UK, or in which such an appeal was pending. As I said in Committee, it is not our intention to force people who have observed the conditions of their leave to risk criminal sanction during their appeal. The new clause fits with principle that there should be a ““soft-touch, light-touch”” compliance regime for those who comply with our system of immigration control, but far stricter enforcement for those who abuse it. The new clause fills a gap in the original Bill about which legitimate concerns were expressed. In Committee, I undertook to explore whether we needed to introduce further proposals and, if so, whether existing rules would provide a suitable vehicle or could be modified to do so. I also undertook to consider whether new legislation was needed. After much thought and reflection, we believe that it is on balance right and appropriate to include these provisions on the face of the Bill. That is the intention behind Government new clause 1. I repeat that I shall return to the Dispatch Box when other hon. Members have had a chance to state their case in respect of the new clause and the other amendments that are grouped with it, quite fairly, under the broad heading of ““Appeals””.