Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I have said no. If the public are to have confidence in immigration policy, we must have a controlled, managed migration system, which we announced in February with the introduction of the points system. The quid pro quo for public confidence in a transparent, simplified, managed migration system is—this goes to the heart of the Bill—a proper regime, which includes employers taking responsibility for dealing with illegal working. The two elements that I have mentioned are reflected in the Bill, outlined in the five-year plan and the strategy document, and go to the heart of a progressive system. As I have said, provisions were added to the Bill after the cross-party deliberations in July. They concern denying asylum to terrorists, extending the power to strip citizenship from those who act in ways contrary to the UK’s interest and speeding up the appeals process in national security deportation cases. I agree with those who suggest that it would nice if the other place were to have a detailed discussion on that point, reflecting our discussion in Committee rather than today’s truncated debate. Those elements, too, form a measured and proportionate response to the real threat that we face. Some hon. Members—happily a minority—think that the threat is not significant. The measures are aimed at people who threaten the UK’s national security and engage in unacceptable behaviour that creates a climate in which extremism can take root. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that the measures will impact on large numbers of people in practice. As ever, some hon. Members—they were not members of the Committee—seek to take a universal position, assume that every attempt to counter terrorism affects everybody rather than just a small minority, and pollute and distort the argument. We shall utilise technology where we can in the context of this Bill and beyond, and we are introducing biometrics now rather than later for foreign visa nationals. This country has a chance to introduce a progressive asylum and immigration system rooted in a context in which refugees are welcome. If we need a debate about community cohesion—our communities are now third, fourth or fifth generation—we can have it, because the Bill and the strategy that surrounds it will hopefully lance the Powellite poison and Mickey Mouse Alf Garnett impressions that have characterised discussions about asylum and immigration thus far. That way lies madness, so I am pleased that this Bill gets us to a place where we have a progressive asylum and immigration policy. I thank the official Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive contributions. I will not thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who chickened out and worked on another Bill rather than joining us. Liberal Democrat Front Benchers made some productive contributions, but not a whole lot—I might add that those contributions were always at length, too. I thank the Whip, who did an expert job, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I also thank the army, nay legion, of lawyers, policy officials and Home Office people who have helped us make what on the face of it looks like a small contribution to asylum and immigration policy in this country. In the wider context of the five-year plan and the strategy, however, the Bill has a significance way beyond its actual provisions.