I shall try to be briefer than the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was in explaining my concerns about new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 47, 6 and 33.
New clause 1 is generally welcome because it goes some way to meeting some of the concerns raised in Committee about the position of people whose leave had been curtailed or whose application for variation of leave had been refused and whether they would immediately be committing an offence. There are still some uncertainties. What exactly does it mean and how will it operate? I would be grateful if the Minister could address some of those issues when he replies.
Subsection (3) is in the middle of the list of conditions that someone has to fulfil in order not to commit an offence. The condition is"““that a decision has been made to remove the person from the United Kingdom.””"
What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that the person has been served with notice of decision to remove, for example? There are many examples where decisions are taken to refuse an application of one sort or another. The decisions having been taken, there is then quite a considerable gap before anything happens about a removal decision. There is certainly a gap before the removal decision is served on the person concerned. I would like there to be clarify on what that condition will mean in practice.
Secondly, if somebody is covered by new clause 1, is not committing an offence and is awaiting an appeal, exactly what rights do they retain given the permissions that they already have? If someone had an entitlement to work, will that entitlement continue until the time where either removal or appeal occurs? People might be entitled to benefits or other forms of support. They will certainly be coming under some of the conditions in the clause in future. There are those who have been given refugee status—which will now be a temporary protection—whose leave has been curtailed. Will someone in that position still be entitled to any form of support when they are awaiting a decision on appeal? It would be helpful to have some clarity. The clause is well intentioned, but I am not convinced that it is drafted perfectly to cover all situations that might arise.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Neil Gerrard
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 16 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c988 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:17:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_274954
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_274954
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_274954