---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that he has spoken in every immigration Bill debate since entering this House. I am afraid that I have to tell him that until now, I had never spoken in such a debate, but there is always a first time, even for someone who has been in the House as long as I have. Perhaps because this is my first such debate, I have found it extremely interesting and rewarding. It has been so not merely because of the expertise demonstrated by the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Leicester, East, but because of the passionate and sincere speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). The whole House listened to him with rapt attention, and I hope that he will get a proper reply from the Minister who winds up the debate. I accept that the Bill is a specific measure that implements the five-year plan, puts into primary legislation the provisions necessary to bring that plan to fruition, and deals with some anomalies in the law. There are many aspects of it that I support. It is necessary for officers to have the power to obtain information from airlines and shipping lines, for example, and to have powers of search. Indeed, I am surprised that such powers have not already been included in primary legislation. I also accept the point that was made—very well made—about employment practices. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said that in many ways, it would have been better if the Government had enforced existing laws more effectively, rather than introducing new ones. There is sometimes an inverse relationship between the Government’s effectiveness and the amount of legislation that they introduce. The appeal process is a very important issue. Non-experts and non-lawyers such as myself enter into this area with some trepidation. Members in all parts of the House have referred to the difficulties associated with the current appeals system, and the Prime Minister himself has been quoted in this context. The shadow Home Secretary pointed out that it is certainly possible that eliminating the appeals process could lead to less rigorous decision making. If such a process does not exist, such decisions could be taken less carefully and thoroughly.