Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

We have dealt with Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, so I now intend to speak to the Question whether Clause 46 shall stand part. I support the points already made on a number of other amendments. This clause takes us back to the debates on Clauses 1 and 11. Section 10 provides the power to issue removal directions. It is against the decision to issue removal directions that, once variation appeals are abolished, an appeal will be made on the part of those refused variation of leave. The decision to cancel leave in those circumstances raises the same problems as raised by Clause 11. There has been a good bit of discussion about benefits, financial or otherwise, for asylum-seekers. We now see that the invalidation of a person’s leave also stops access to any benefits that may have been conditional on the leave, even when that leave was obtained by deception in the first place. The clause stops that access at an earlier stage in the process. This is part of the same package of provisions that we debated on Clauses 1, 11 and 13 and has already been discussed extensively. The Minister was very encouraging on Clause 1, but it would be helpful to know whether she has any further comments. Also, the Minister said previously that ““compliant”” people would not get passports stamped. Who does she mean by ““complaint””? By what process under the Bill will they be recognised?