PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee IMMIGRATION BILL Fourth Sitting Thursday 31 October 2013 (Afternoon) CONTENTS Examination of witness. Adjourned till Tuesday 5 November at five minutes to Nine o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 110) 2013 - 2014 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office. No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Monday 4 November 2013 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 109 Public Bill Committee31 OCTOBER 2013 Immigration Bill 110 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: †SIR ROGER GALE,KATY CLARK † Bain, Mr William (Glasgow North East) (Lab) † Milton, Anne (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Baker, Norman (Minister for Crime Prevention) Treasury) Dowd, Jim (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) † Opperman, Guy (Hexham) (Con) † Doyle-Price, Jackie (Thurrock) (Con) Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP) † Hanson, Mr David (Delyn) (Lab) † Patel, Priti (Witham) (Con) † Harper, Mr Mark (Minister for Immigration) † Robertson, John (Glasgow North West) (Lab) † Hillier, Meg (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/ † Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con) Co-op) Soames, Nicholas (Mid Sussex) (Con) Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD) † Syms, Mr Robert (Poole) (Con) (Sedgefield) Jones, Helen (Warrington North) (Lab) Wilson, Phil (Lab) † Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con) John-Paul Flaherty, Matthew Hamlyn, Committee † McFadden, Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East) Clerks (Lab) † Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con) † attended the Committee Witness Mr Mark Harper MP, Minister for Immigration 111 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Immigration Bill 112 87% for managed migration applications. Where we do Public Bill Committee not grant, not everybody who has a right of appeal chooses to use it. Of the cases that go to appeal, some Thursday 31 October 2013 are won and some lost by the Home Office. The number of decisions that a judicial tribunal or (Afternoon) court determines to be incorrect is quite a small percentage of the total number of decisions made by the Home [SIR ROGER GALE in the Chair] Office. We are not complacent. We plan to put in place an administrative review process where we remove the Immigration Bill right of appeal in managed migration cases. That is a process that works well outside the UK; we make more Examination of Witness than 90% of those judgments within 28 days and overturn Mark Harper MP gave evidence. a significant number of decisions. 2pm In answer to your question about whether we are putting systematic processes in place to improve decision Q228 The Chair: Good afternoon. We will now take making, yes we are. For example, for existing routes of evidence from the Home Office. Mr Harper, would you appeal—we do this with administrative review—where please identify yourself? a caseworker makes a decision that is subsequently Mr Harper: I am Mark Harper, Minister of State for overturned, whether by administrative review or through Immigration. the judicial process, we are looking at improving the mechanisms for that information to go back to the Q229 Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Good afternoon, caseworker or managers to improve decision making. Minister. I reassure you that I will not engage in political That happens well at the moment in our overseas operations; debate this afternoon; I want to ask a couple of questions it happens less well in our in-country operations. The that might stop us or encourage us in tabling an amendment, new UK Visas and Immigration business is putting depending on the answers. I start with proposed new great effort into improving the quality of original decision section 10(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, making. as set out in clause 1, which states that a “person’s family may also be removed from the United Kingdom”. Q233 Mr Hanson: Thanks for that. Clauses 15 to Will that apply to British and EU citizens? 32 deal with accommodation and landlords. Youindicated Mr Harper: No. If someone is a British citizen with a that you would publish guidance on that; can you right to be in the United Kingdom, unless their nationality assure the Committee that you will do so before we status has changed, they have the right to be here. That consider those clauses next week? is one factor taken into account by the court in family Mr Harper: Yes, the plan is that we will make that cases when there is, for example, a British citizen child, detail available to the Committee prior to debate on and the foreign national is the only possible carer of those clauses, so it is properly briefed and can see the that child. That is one thing that the court weighs in the sorts of things that would encompass reasonable inquiries balance. on behalf of landlords, and what we expect landlords to do. We also think it is important to publish the code of Q230 Mr Hanson: Would it also mean that a foreign practice that will set out how landlords should carry out national on a temporary visa or measure would not be those inquiries so as to comply with important equality removed, if they had the right of abode in the UK? legislation. Having listened to the evidence given on Mr Harper: If someone is a foreign national, their Tuesday, I note that this caused concern to a number of status is capable of being changed, depending on the witnesses. Our code of practice will deal with that, and circumstances. will clearly give Members the opportunity to question and challenge us on whether we have dealt with all the Q231 Mr Hanson: On clause 2, which is on enforcement witnesses’ concerns. powers, do you intend to publish guidance on the use of any new powers that Parliament may ultimately authorise? Q234 Mr Hanson: Will you clarify for the Committee Mr Harper: We do. The Home Office publishes that if Parliament approves clauses 15 to 32, you intend operational guidance for immigration enforcement officers to pilot those clauses’ impact before full implementation? on powers and how we plan to use them, and where Mr Harper: We intend to have a phased roll-out of possible, we make that publicly available. Where we those provisions. That means that we will implement have new powers under the Bill, we would set out them in one or more areas first, and once they have operational guidance on how we planned the powers to commenced, we will look at how they work in practice be used by immigration enforcement officers. to see if there are any lessons that we need to learn. We will subsequently roll those provisions out across the Q232 Mr Hanson: Thank you. Clause 11 deals with country. If you look at the Bill, there is an opportunity first-tier tribunals, which the Bill aims to abolish. Do for Parliament to be involved in that decision-making you have any proposals for improving the decision process. making in areas covered by the first-tier tribunal appeal? Evidence suggests that 50% of appeals are upheld. Q235 Mr Hanson: In the schedule 3 provisions about Mr Harper: It is worth putting the numbers in context. student accommodation, there is an exemption for—I I will set out more detail for the Committee when we use the phrase carefully—a “hall of residence”. Could debate the detailed provisions of the Bill. It is worth you give the Committee a definition of what you think remembering that we grant a significant proportion of is a hall of residence, in relation to university-managed the applications that we get; I think it is something like student accommodation? 113 Public Bill Committee31 OCTOBER 2013 Immigration Bill 114 Mr Harper: Our intention is that accommodation picking up on this morning’s discussion, some very that is entirely owned and controlled by the university lengthy cases, particularly in the context of deportation, would clearly fall within the definition. Where a university are so lengthy only because the person concerned is not has the right to nominate students to properties, and complying with the law and is employing every trick in those properties contain a majority of students nominated the book to avoid being removed from the country. in that way, we would expect that accommodation also That person might complain that the process is taking a to be exempt. Our policy intention, which we think is long time, but they have had a decision, and if they delivered by the drafting of the Bill, is that where a wanted it to be swift, they could just leave. university effectively determines the accommodation On your question about leave to remain, if the person lived in by one of their students, in a controlled way, the has applied for an extension of leave before their leave university has already carried out checks to make sure expired, as you know, their existing leave will roll forward that the student has a right to study in the United until we make a decision, so in the case that you Kingdom, and we do not want to burden them with a highlight, the person would have the right to be here.