Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you allowed me a little licence to consider the political context in which the Bill has been discussed. There is no doubt, in the broadest of terms of British public policy over 30 years, that we have collectively run away from a substantive debate on asylum and immigration. I have no difficulty in engaging in such a debate. I am pleased that the Bill is before the House at a time soon enough after the election to put these matters in context. That is of great service to British public policy generally and to the House. The Bill is about only those matters that need legislation in the context of the five-year plan, based on what was published in February. The provisions in the Bill now put it in a better place than it was when we started consideration in Committee. There is no doubt about that. Many of the amendments that we discussed today on Report go back to our discussions in Committee and take on board many of the points that were made by Committee members. Sometimes they have not met the full satisfaction of hon. Members, but I think that people will concur, when they read the Hansard report of our considerations, that many Government amendments were an attempt to meet some of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. There were some genuine concerns, many of which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I attested in Committee, will be readily dealt with in secondary legislation and in other forms that will be wrapped round the Bill rather than being part of it. We think that the Bill improves our ability to improve border security by allowing border agencies to share passenger data more efficiently. It allows the use of 21st century technology to facilitate legitimate travel and to improve the identification of illegal immigration. That is not simply in terms of the Bill but in the context of everything else that we are doing in respect of important elements of policy. I freely admit that the most contentious part of the Bill was the introduction of a rationalised appeal system for managed migration routes in line with improved decision-making on visa applications. That is very important in the context of the points system. I may not owe the House an apology, but I accept that it is difficult for Members who did not serve on the Committee to understand the narrow focus of the legislation without the wider picture of the consultation paper on the points system and other aspects of the five-year plan. I repeat the promise that I gave in Committee: as there is no substantive change to the points system during the transitional phase, we shall preserve the appeals regime during that period. If discrete parts of the points system can be introduced early, the quid pro quo is that appeals will fall away. That will give us sufficient time to bed in the new resources, the decision-making process and other improvements in entry clearance officer structures. Hopefully, if the full-time independent monitor is appointed by January, they will be in post when our new decision-making process is introduced, which is all to the good. Genuine concerns have been expressed, some of which I did not accept, about unifying the appeal process to a single level of appeal. However, I tried to address anxieties about the transition to a points system without appeals. The Bill provides for civil penalties for employers of illegal workers, and creates a new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker. The five-year plan and all the provisions in the Bill contain the vital elements of a progressive asylum and immigration process. If we are to do everything that we can to maintain our position on the 1951 refugee convention and ensure that this country remains a safe haven for people fleeing persecution, we must simultaneously adopt a robust approach to the removal of people who do not have refugee status under the convention. Some people do not like that approach, but I am convinced that if we are to preserve the integrity of the convention—hopefully, no party will fight the next election saying that they will get rid of the 1951 convention, as that would be shameful—we need equally robust decision-making and removals processes.