Charles Walker calls for a more humane immigration system tied to the quicker removal of those denied permission to stay in the UK.

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): There is a good Charles Walker and a bad Charles Walker. The bad Charles Walker says on occasions, “Why should the short-term detention centres be particularly welcoming? We have loads of immigrants coming to this country, and many people do not want so many to come, so why should these detention centres be comfortable?” Then the good Charles Walker holds sway and says, “Yes, there are bad people who want to come to this country and do bad things, but there are also many good people escaping terrible oppression.”

Of course, if people are put in a short-term detention centre for seven days, they are not illegal immigrants, because they have not entered the country and been lost within the system. They have been detained at our borders. We have to ensure that while people are in the short-term detention centres, it is not a near-prison experience. They must be looked after and receive the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) mentioned. They have the right to legal representation, interpretation services and so on. As I said, many good people will be caught up in the system.

Many people will take an interest in amendment 20, because short-term detention facilities last at most seven days. For many people who leave those centres, the nightmare will just be beginning. They may face years and years caught up in a system that refuses to give them a clear decision on their immigration status. They will be in limbo, unable to work and relying on handouts.

We said at the start of the debate that it was important that our immigration system was humane. My concern is that although we may have humane seven-day detention centres, the rest of the system will continue to be inhumane. We need to remove people from this country far more quickly than we do at present, but at the same time it is almost madness that we force people to wait for up to a decade for a decision. We need to take a broader look—outside amendment 20 and this Bill—at how we treat people who come to this country. Yes, in many cases, sending them home will be the right thing to do, but it may now be time to consider whether we should let people work while they are waiting for the decision. The quid pro quo for our constituents could be that we would make that decision in, at most, a couple of years, and we would remove people after that period. However, while they are here, we would not make their lives a living hell. We are a first-world country, and we need to behave like one when it comes to immigration.

...

Mr. Woolas:...The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) made a point about the time that it takes. Of course, some of the legacy cases have taken a number of years. That is regrettable, but it is most often caused by not the lack of a clear decision but a series of legal challenges involving appeal, fresh application, application for judicial review and so on. It is exactly that point—that justice delayed is justice denied both for the applicant and the taxpayer—that our proposals on judicial review are designed to address. Given that the hon. Gentleman spoke so strongly and passionately about the need for speedy decisions, I hope that he will support us, if we divide tonight, on the administrative reforms.

Mr. Walker: The Minister is very generous in giving way, and he is very good at laying traps—I hope that I do not fall in to one. I take his comments in the spirit in which they are said. What probably concerns his constituents, as well as mine, is the sheer length of time that it seems to take to remove certain people who are refused entry. We can perhaps both agree on that.

Mr. Woolas: I gave way to the good hon. Gentleman, and his intervention was good, too. My experience is that the delay of deportation to which he refers—rather than the delay of an immigration or asylum decision—is, in practice, either due to legal challenge and non-acceptance of the decisions of the judiciary, which we will debate in a later group of amendments if you allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to do with false claims of country of origin. For example, many people who claim to be Zimbabwean are, we discover, nothing of the sort. Many people who claim to be Kosovan turn out to be Albanian. In some cases, the country of origin refuses to issue documentation and the bad side of our characters, which says that we should get on with it, often misses the reality, which is that it is not possible to get on with it because of the dispute. In those circumstances, the thrust of policy is designed to speed up that system because the delays are, frankly, unacceptable. That is why, given what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am sure that his good side would support my comments on the changes required to the process of tribunals and courts and on the behaviour of some lawyers.

...

Mr. Walker: I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) says. I deal with a number of immigration cases where I think, “For goodness’ sake, this is clearly a good person, so can we get on with it?” However, I support the Minister in that I think that Members of Parliament have to be far more robust in supporting the work of his Department when we feel that it has got it right. We need to say to the people who come through our door, “No, a decision has been made. It was the right decision and it is time for you to go back to where you came from.”

Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman describes the two pressures on us, even if it is not quite a Jekyll and Hyde situation. I believe, as I am sure that he does, that most right hon. and hon. Members do the right thing. There is a balance between advocacy for the individual and pursuing the honest policy. My experience is that we, as Members, are often naive about the intent and content of cases that are put before us. Close examination by our officials often paints a different picture from the one presented to us. It is understandable that people present their case in a good light.

...

Mr. Walker: In bringing forward new clause 8, the Minister poses serious questions. Whose interests does the immigration appeal system serve? We have identified that it certainly serves the interests of lawyers, some of whom are not too reputable. We have identified that it sometimes serves the interests of those who bring appeals through lawyers, the immigrants who face removal from this country.

If one were to go out in my constituency and talk about new clause 8, there would be a view that the appeal system does not serve the interests of my constituents. I imagine that the case may well be the same in the Minister’s constituency. There is a view out there that we are in a world of endless appeals. We in this place know that that is not the case, but it is the perception, and we are here to reflect the concerns of our constituents.

I am pleased that we are moving towards a system that accelerates the whole process of identifying whether someone has the right to remain here and, if we decide that they do not, accelerates the process of their removal. If our immigration system is to secure the support of the majority, it has to be seen to reflect their concerns and aspirations. Our constituents are fair-minded people, and they want the law to contain certain safeguards so that if a wrong decision is made in the early part of the process, it can be overturned. What they do not want is a system that frustrates and thwarts their desire to ensure that those who have a right to remain in this country are allowed to remain, but that those who have no right to remain are removed quickly and humanely to the place from which they came here.

Mr. Woolas: I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) on his last point. The issue is more difficult in the area of immigration and asylum, because while appeals are being awaited and the process is going on, in the real world people’s circumstances change. They get married, have babies, change their location and so on. That means that the judicial system is asked to cope with a moving scenario. From the taxpayer’s point of view, it is important that we have as efficient a system as possible, commensurate with access to fair justice.

| Hansard