House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jan 1992

Column 241

Mr. Peter Lloyd : That is only if everything in the claim is true and it provides grounds that are arguable under the United Nations convention. Only then will the adjudicator be obliged to allow an oral appeal.

Mr. Fraser : That is what I meant. As the right to be heard is being removed, something of a premium is being put on a case that will not be made under oath and in such terms that it will be difficult for the special adjudicator to resist giving leave to appeal. That is why I said that the Minister may be making a rod for his own back.

The proper solution might be to adopt the procedure of the High Court in cases of judicial review. In such cases--this is not exclusively so--the applicant makes an application in writing to be considered by the judge. In many cases, the judge will give leave for judicial review--in other words, leave to appeal against a decision refusing the status of political asylum. In those cases where the judge does not give leave on the written application, there is automatically the right to renew the application and to make an oral application to the divisional court and to be heard. It is the right to be heard at one point or another in the process which is at the heart of the new clause and the amendments.

In the long run, it would satisfy the basic tenets of justice if our amendments were accepted. Ironically enough, they might provide greater satisfaction for the Minister. Perhaps we can reach agreement and the Minister will be able to say that, on consideration, he will ensure that the Bill, if not amended in the terms that I put forward but by means of similar drafting, will eventually establish the fundamental right to be heard that should appear in this legislation.

Mr. Corbyn : I support new clause 7 and the amendments that are grouped with it. I do so with no great joy because they take up one of the issues that we debated at great length in Committee. We were concerned about the lack of proper rights to appeal for those seeking political asylum or any other sort of asylum, social, religious or whatever. I moved an amendment in Committee, with the support of others, which would have prevented the Home Secretary having the right to remove anyone from this country until all the legal avenues open to him or her had been exhausted, including the European Court of Human Rights. It seems that we are in the unfortunate position where the hated Immigration Act 1971, which established the immigration appeal tribunal system, is the only legislation on which we can fall back to provide some avenue for appeal that is slightly better than that of an adjudicator.

I do not believe that the Government have acted in any great belief in the right of appeal. Instead, I believe that they are under pressure from the courts--court administrators and, no doubt, groups of High Court judges who get together for port at the end of their dinners to chat about these matters--which are concerned about the many judicial reviews that have been sought and the hearings that have been granted.

It is a condemnation of the United Kingdom's ability to allow those seeking asylum a proper avenue of legal appeal if the only route open to them is for their solicitor to ensure that an application for judicial review is heard. The system of judicial review was not set up for that. It is a long stop that has become the norm because there is nothing else open to applicants and those who represent them. We are

Column 242

saying that those who are denied the right of asylum should at least have the opportunity to appear before the immigration trial tribunal. That is because it is better than no form of appeal and not because I think that it is an especially good system. It is not acceptable to have asylum applications dealt with in the present manner and in the way in which the Bill envisages.

Any form of justice should include the presumption of innocence and a separation of legal and judicial powers. My experience of immigration law and asylum law is that there is no presumption of innocence, especially in immigration law. There is no presumption at any stage in favour of the person who is seeking asylum in this country. There is a presumption against them that is contrary to the principles of English law. It leaves enormous powers in the hands of the Home Secretary, who has been ready to use them. One thinks of the poor teacher from Zaire who was disgracefully bundled out of this country, apparently lost in Charles de Gaulle airport, and was finally dumped back in Zaire--from which he had fled in great fear. All that was because the Home Secretary was not prepared to take action. One thinks also of the Tamils who were wrongfully deported to Sri Lanka. There were other instances in which the actions of the Home Office and of the Home Secretary in particular were found seriously wanting. The amendments will not right all those wrongs, but they provide an opportunity for the due process of law and for an appeal.

The alternative suggested by the Home Office is a series of adjudicators. I do not doubt that many of them will be well informed and well trained. However, the most well-informed and well-trained people are capable of making mistakes. The point at issue is how one can introduce checks and balances into a legal system that allows mistakes to be made without offering any chance of rectifying them. The Government's proposals provide no such opportunity, and the amendments will make a slight improvement to what is really a pretty squalid little Bill.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : I am prompted to speak against new clause 7 by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). There is of course in the Bill a presumption against applicants for asylum. Everyone would concede that. The reason is that a large number of the people who make applications have already destroyed their identity documents.

As to the immigration appeal tribunal, the Bill has been brought before the House because that tribunal is swamped and is in administrative difficulties.

Mr. Corbyn : The hon. Gentleman should be more cautious before stating that

"a large number of the people who make applications have already destroyed their identity documents."

Does he have any proof? That is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman should check the figures. Has he read all the applications that are claimed to be bogus, or does the hon. Gentleman rely--like the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)--on the front page of the News of the World for his information?

Mr. Allason : I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify that point. My understanding is that two thirds of those people arriving in the United Kingdom claiming asylum do so with forged, mutilated or no documents. It is in those circumstances that the Government have brought the Bill before the House,

Column 243

which seems perfectly reasonable. The old system clearly cannot cope with the level of applicants, and to return to it would be absolutely dotty.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) rightly said that the central issue is the right of leave to appeal. That is why I registered surprise when we appeared to reach that aspect when debating the previous group of amendments. The amendments now before us deal primarily with the Bill's requirement that where an applicant's claim is rejected by the Home Office, and before he can make a full oral appeal, he must obtain leave from the adjudicator, who will decide from the papers whether to grant it.

In Committee, and when debating the previous group of amendments, I made it clear that the rule is necessary to avoid manifestly unfounded and third safe country claims introducing unnecessary delays into the system. In third country cases, speed is of the essence if we are to be sure that the third safe country will receive the applicant and consider his or her claim fully.

Mr. Corbyn : The third country aspect is referred to in more measured tones in the draft rules that the Minister published today. In Committee, I expressed concern that third countries might on the face of it appear safe, yet the reality of someone from parts of north Africa living in Paris or another major French city, given the degree of racist violence that is to be found there, might make France, for example, far from safe. Does the Minister concede that an apparently safe third country may not prove to be so for some individuals?

7.45 pm

Mr. Lloyd : My prime consideration is whether an asylum claim will be properly heard under the terms of the UN convention. Some claims will be properly heard in a third country, but that may not be so in respect of some individuals from a particular country. We would not seek to return a person if we were not satisfied that a country had a proper system for considering asylum cases and that it would assess thoroughly the claim of the individual in question. We always refer third country cases to UKIAS, as the point of contact with the UNHCR in respect of such matters.

I cannot tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that reports of violence or discriminatory behaviour in a particular country would of themselves serve as a ground for never returning someone there as a third safe country. However, the totality of a person's claim, even in respect of a third safe country, is taken into account--and there is the right to seek leave to appeal before the adjudicator. If the adjudicator considers that there is an arguable reason for an individual believing that he or she would not receive reasonable treatment of the kind required under the United Nations convention in the third safe country, he would allow an appeal to be heard. That matter is for the adjudicator.

The original draft procedural rules made it clear that an adjudicator had to attend a full hearing unless he was satisfied that the applicant did not have an arguable case--that, even if all the applicant said was true, it still did not add up to a claim that could be argued even under the provisions of the 1951 convention. From the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood, it was clear that it was

Column 244

dawning on him how low was the threshold in practice. Therefore, I do not accept that the Opposition's fears are justified.

If there is a soupcon of doubt in the adjudicator's mind that there is the beginning of a case that can be argued, he must go to an oral hearing. If a decision of the Home Office hinged on the applicant's credibility, the adjudicator would be compelled to permit an oral hearing. He could not say to himself, "I am not surprised that the Home Office turned down that individual, because I cannot imagine anyone believing his story." He could not refuse an oral hearing on that basis, but must allow one on the basis of the credibility of the individual and the tale that he told.

The adjudicator can refuse an oral hearing only if he is certain that, even if the applicant's story is true, it does not bring that individual into the ambit of the 1951 convention. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether that should not only be spelt out more fully in the procedural rules but--as it is crucial--be written into the primary legislation. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that it should. I am sorry that the wording is not ready for this stage, but it is the Government's intention to table an appropriate amendment in another place.

I hope that that will satisfy Opposition Members to some extent, especially as there is likely to be a further debate about the issue in the House of Commons. I feel that a filter should be available for claims that have no merit. I do not believe that we should allow appeal against a refusal of leave, given that such refusals will be issued only when there is no arguable case under the convention. If it were impossible to refuse a hearing on the papers, one of the Bill's purposes--its provision for manifestly unfounded applications to be dealt with speedily--would be undermined.

If, however, an adjudicator ignored the criteria that I have described-- whose liberality has been recognised by the hon. Member for Norwood--and refused an oral hearing although an arguable case existed, that would be exactly the kind of circumstance on which judicial review would properly bite. I do not believe that it will come to that ; but the provision is there lest an adjudicator interpret the requirements too narrowly.

Several amendments seek to ensure that appeals from the adjudicator to the tribunal are not confined to matters of law. I agree with that, but I do not think that such a provision should be contained in the legislation. The normal place for such measures is in the procedural rules, and the draft rules now include an amendment that widens the grounds to matters of fact. I do not believe, however, that the grounds for appeal to the High Court should be similarly widened ; I think it right that appeals from the tribunal should still be confined to matters of law.

Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston) : Have I understood my hon. Friend correctly? Is he saying that the provision previously contained in rule 5(7), which referred to those with no arguable claim for asylum, will now be contained in the body of the Act?

Mr. Lloyd : That is the Government's intention. I hoped that we would be able to discuss that provision tonight, but it will now be discussed in the other place ; if it is accepted there, it will return to the House of Commons later.

Column 245

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested that the appeal rights had been brought under pressure by the requirements of the courts and the Government's desire for less judicial review. Certainly I hope that there will be less judicial review, but one of the main reasons for our proposals is the demonstrable unfairness of circumstances in which only some asylum seekers have the opportunity to appeal to an independent authority. Surely they should all have the same rights. Given our wish for a speedier process, the safeguard of an independent appeal system for everyone is especially important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is right : numbers have risen sharply. It is because of that increase that some of the measures in the Bill have been included. However, in so far as the burden of proof mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North exists, it was not caused by the greater numbers. When someone arrives and asks for asylum, it is natural to say, "Tell me about your experiences ; I must be satisfied that you are indeed seeking asylum." That will inevitably place some burden on the asylum seeker, but one reason for the section of the rules that deals with credibility--although it may not govern the eventual decision--is that it is fair to expect someone with a well-founded claim to wish to co- operate with the authorities, and to reveal as much as he can about himself, his origins and his case. It is up to him, in the first place, to explain why he is seeking asylum.

Mr. Allason : My hon. Friend has mentioned the number of asylum seekers who arrive with mutilated identity papers, or whose papers have been destroyed. What is the proportion ?

Mr. Lloyd : About two thirds of those who seek asylum at the ports, who themselves constitute about a quarter, or perhaps a third, of asylum seekers. The figure currently runs at 10,000 to 12,000 a year. Naturally, we ask why the people concerned have no papers, or why their papers have been mutilated, and in many cases they give convincing answers : indeed, their explanations may well enhance their credibility. It is reasonable, however, for us to make inquiries, to take the answers into account and to spell out the requirements in the rules, as we have always done.

Mr. Corbyn : The Immigration (Carrier's Liability) Act 1987 recognises that some people fleeing persecution are forced to destroy their real identity and to seek a false identity. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office does not intend to depart from the recognition that people who are fleeing for their safety may have no alternative but to destroy their identity, and travel with forged documents?

Mr. Lloyd : I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. No one who has arrived with mutilated documents, or without documents, will ever be refused asylum in this country. As I have said, however, such people will be asked for an explanation. The answer may well affect their credibility : it may enhance that credibility, but it will often do the opposite.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) : One of the main reasons for the Bill is the massive increase over the past two or three years in the number of people either seeking entry on the basis of being asylum seekers, or entering with a

Column 246

visitor's or student's visa and, after six or nine months, deciding--lo and behold!--that they are really political refugees. As the Bill acknowledges, it is essential to provide guaranteed safeguards to ensure that the applications of genuine political refugees are examined properly and--if proved to be genuine--dealt with accordingly. It is equally essential to provide a fast-track procedure to identify and weed out the vast majority of the people who constitute that increase in numbers--those who could not be thought other than thoroughly bogus except by fatuous do-gooders. Such people do a great disservice to genuine applicants for political refugee status.

Mr. Boateng : The genuine tone and flavour of the hon. Gentleman's remarks are as we would expect, given his pedigree in this regard. It is not clear, however, to which amendment he is directing them.

Mr. Janman : I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I was in the middle of saying that it is important to establish procedures that will provide safeguards for genuine applications.

Mr. Boateng : To which amendment does the hon. Gentleman refer? 8 pm

Mr. Janman : I am speaking to all the amendments that the House is currently considering. The hon. Gentleman will soon learn that my comments are about the collective impact of the amendments that the Labour party has tabled. I do not wish to get bogged down in the technical legalities of any particular amendment. The point that I was seeking to make when I gave way to the hon. Gentleman was that it is important that a mechanism should be put in place that ensures that the vast majority of applications that are clearly bogus can be weeded out effectively, efficiently and quickly. If that is not done, genuine applicants will have to wait much longer, and will be caught up in a massive queue.

The Labour party is being as deceitful as ever. A general election is looming. The vast majority of ordinary working men and women, whom the Labour party purports to represent, are in favour of the provisions of the Bill and the new immigration rules that will also come into force. However, rather than just stand up and say, "We oppose the Bill because we want the outrageous things that have been going on during the last two or three years to continue," the Labour party has tabled amendments that look very nice on paper but whose effect, if they were accepted by the Government, would be to drive a coach and horses through the required changes that the Bill will bring about.

If the amendments were accepted, we would end up maintaining a long-drawn- out appeals procedure for all these bogus applicants. They would be able to keep on appealing and we would be unable, therefore, to weed out quickly any bogus applications. We would therefore be unable to reduce the massive backlog of genuine applications. We know what these people do while their cases go on and on. Either they disappear into the inner depths of Birmingham or Bradford or wherever, or they meet and marry a British citizen, thereby bringing a new arrow into their armoury when it comes to arguing their case for being

Column 247

allowed to remain in Britain, having entered this country in the first place by means of deceit and lies when they reached the port of entry.

I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that the amendments should be resisted and treated with the contempt they deserve. They would undo the objective of the Bill, which is to deal with a very serious problem about which many of my constituents and, I am sure, people in general are becoming increasingly concerned. They expect the Government to plug the gap. I am pleased to see that they are plugging it. I note that, once again, the Labour party is trying to prevent measures being taken to sort out a problem that worries millions of people in this country.

Mr. Fraser : I shall not respond to what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has just said, except in one respect. He said that he wanted a fast track procedure to get rid of undesirable people. That fast track procedure is on its way in Thurrock. It is called the general election.

Mr. Janman : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I hold my seat at the next election, I am sure that his party will have to choose a new candidate for the following election.

Mr. Fraser : I was referring not to the hon. Gentleman's opponent but to him.

I have an unpleasant surprise for the hon. Gentleman. He urged the Minister to resist the amendments. I intend to ask the leave of the House to withdraw them. The Minister has practically met the point that we made by means of two very important concessions. He intends to table an amendment in another place to deal with the matters that he outlined in his speech. If the amendment has the effect that the Minister said it would have, it will go a very long way towards meeting our point. It will ensure that, in practice, virtually every applicant for political asylum will be given an oral hearing. That is what we want. That is what I believe the Under- Secretary of State will give us. We shall have the opportunity to examine the matter again when the Bill returns here. We have almost got together on this issue.

In addition, there are the substantial changes that were set out by the Under-Secretary of State. They are described in the draft rules governing appeals to the immigration appeal tribunal.

I am grateful, for the time being, for the concessions that have been promised by the Under-Secretary of State. I am sorry to have disappointed the hon. Member for Thurrock.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

The Convention, claims forasylum and asylum-seekers

Amendment made : No. 25, in page 1, line 14, at end insert (1A) Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.'.-- [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Column 248

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28.

Mr. Lloyd : Some concern was expressed in Committee about the definition of an asylum seeker being linked to the recording of a claim. There was considerable suspicion about what that meant. I explained in Committee that it was relevant only to clause 2 on fingerprinting and to clause 3 on housing and that there was no question of failing to treat someone as an asylum seeker and of denying access to the normal determination system on the pretext that the claim had not been recorded. I undertook to consider whether that could be clarified by means of a change of wording. I am happy to move the amendment. I believe that all these amendments will do just that.

An asylum seeker will no longer be defined generally. Specific provisions are included in clauses 2 and 3, where they are needed. The concept of recording is now clearly limited--as it was, in practice, limited before-- to the housing provisions of the Bill. It is essential for the proper handling of inquiries from local authorities that changes in entitlement, which no doubt we shall debate in the next group of amendments, should be triggered by information that is made available unequivocally from a central point in the Home Office. The result will be the same as that which was provided for in the initial wording, but I hope that hon. Members will find that the wording is now considerably clearer. Although it is still fairly complicated, it is now much easier to follow than before. I ought to draw the attention of the House to one side effect of the change. It will benefit asylum seekers in a very small way when it comes to the fingerprinting power. The power to fingerprint will cease not when the asylum seeker has his name taken off the record but when the asylum application has been either decided or withdrawn. There will be no delay on account of having to wait until a record has been made of one or other of those outcomes.

I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by hon. Members. They clarify what led to a considerable discussion in Committee.

Mr. Corbyn : I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Under-Secretary. First, let me deal with the recording of information at the point when the person becomes an asylum applicant. The procedure now is that they apply and are interviewed and a file is made up which, at some point, arrives at the central registration. At what point are such people considered to be asylum applicants? If there is a delay in obtaining the information at the recording point and its being received at Home Office, that can cause problems for applicants or their families when they seek, as is their right, income support or housing benefit payments. That can cause difficulties for the families concerned, because, inevitably, people who arrive here seeking political asylum tend to be extremely poor or even destitute. I raise this matter because I know from experience that Kurdish people with whose cases I have been dealing have been unable to obtain income support payments for months because of that difficulty.

I am concerned also about the security of the information. As the Under- Secretary said, we shall be debating this later in the section dealing with housing. Information about someone seeking political asylum can be of interest to the regime from which the person is fleeing. Some years ago asylum applicants from Iraq faced

Column 249

activities by agents of the Iraqi forces who attempted to attack them physically. Therefore, the security of the information and who has access to it are important matters. If, in that context, housing departments around the country are to be required to check with the Home Office whether an applicant has been recorded and is an asylum seeker, due care must be taken to ensure that the information is being passed to a proper representative of the local authority and not to somebody ringing up purporting to be such a representative. I know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment may deal with that later.

In Committee we discussed the fingerprinting of asylum applicants, which is something that I and many of my colleagues find distasteful. Can we be assured that the fingerprinting will be kept entirely separate from any criminal records held by the police or the Home Office? At what stage are children too young for fingerprinting? The Minister refused to be drawn on that in Committee. He merely said that, where appropriate, older children will be fingerprinted. He did not give a minimum age limit below which that would not happen. This is an obnoxious section of the Bill and I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with those points.

Mr. Darling : The terms of amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are generally welcome and acceptable and are in line with the amendments that we tabled in Committee. However, in light of the amendments, can the Minister tell us when someone becomes an asylum seeker? Is it when the claim is lodged or at some other time? Logically, in terms of clause 1, it would be when the application is lodged.

When does someone cease to be an asylum seeker? It is clear from amendment No. 27 that it is when the claim has been "finally determined or abandoned". Would that apply universally throughout the Bill? That is not just important for housing ; other matters may arise when it may be relevant to know whether someone is an asylum seeker.

Amendment No. 28 is not as welcome, because it is adding rather than subtracting from the terms of clause 3. The result is that people cannot be considered for housing under clause 3 until their claim is recorded. In other words, it is the same as the provision in clause 1. The guidance notes to which I referred earlier say in paragraph 9 :

"Where applications are forwarded from the ports or submitted by post there may be a delay of several days before the application reaches the Asylum Division for initial assessment. During this period the asylum applicant is protected by the provisions of the 1951 UN Convention and may not be removed from the country. At the point at which the Asylum Division consider the documents and determine that an asylum claim has been made, the claim will be deemed to be recorded' by the Home Office."

In other words, there may be a delay of several days--in Home Office talk that is a euphemism for a considerable time--in some cases. 8.15 pm

That is relevant in that if someone seeking housing is not an asylum seeker within the meaning of the Act--as it will be--they will not be housed. As we said in Committee, I understand the Government's anxiety to deter people and make life as difficult and unpleasant as possible--the Government made that clear in Committee--but once they are here and have submitted a claim, we cannot expect

Column 250

them to sleep on the streets. We must house them somewhere. I am concerned that amendment No. 28 may cause undesirable difficulties. The Under-Secretary will tell us whether those difficulties are intended. Unless he can assure us that the Home Office is likely to speed up its recording procedures, the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will remain. Will the Under- Secretary comment on that?

Mr. Peter Lloyd : There is in practice no addition to clause 3. There may be an increase in the number of words in the clause, but they will have their effect from the distance of clause 1(2). There is no change in effect, but I believe that the clause will read more clearly. I was seeking to achieve that greater clarity.

The recording for asylum seeking is relevant only for fingerprinting and housing. We debated these matters for a considerable time in Committee when I was seeking to reassure Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), that the use of the word "recorded" affects only the power to diminish the housing right by giving greater flexibility to the local authority and would set a term for when it is lawful for fingerprints to be required. It has no effect on the individual's right to have their case considered in this country or their right not to be returned to the country in which they say they have a well- founded fear of persecution. The protection of the United Nations convention is available to them as soon as they say that they want to seek asylum. We should not muddle things up. It must be put in the Bill so that there is a central list that local authorities know is authoritative. There is a delay of a day or two or longer before someone is accepted and given temporary admission as an asylum seeker and put on that central list. It does not undermine their rights under the United Nations convention or the Secretary of State's obligation to them.

The hon. Member for Islington, North asked about security. That is important and it was raised in Committee. Care must be taken that the knowledge that somebody has applied for asylum is not divulged to people who ought not to know it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to add to what I have said. I think that what we--the Department of the Environment and the Home Office--are now considering will mean that communication on such issues will have to be by post. Although it may be slower, it is more secure, because the information would at least be directed to the people who should properly have it and who, it is reasonable to expect, will regard it with confidentiality as they do the numerous other pieces of confidential information that come their way in local authority departments.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether fingerprinting records will be kept separate--I think that he said "separate from the police". They will certainly be kept separately and will be available only--generally--for the purposes of the asylum division. However, if we receive proper inquiries in proper conditions from the police about an individual whose records we have, they will be made available to the police in the fight against crime. That is the case with any other information that the Home Office properly holds and it is what any other Government Department does and, indeed, what any other organisation would do. However, the records will not be part of the police's normal records and we would not expect to give

Column 251

any other organisation--including the police --general access to them, but we shall respond when legitimate and proper requests are made to us by legitimate and proper authorities including, of course, the police.

The hon. Member for Islington, North also asked about the fingerprinting of children. We seek to take powers in the Bill to fingerprint every asylum seeker, including children. As I said in Committee, we do not look to take fingerprints of young children--I shall not say how young such children would be because it would depend on the circumstances. I hope that it will be done as seldom as possible, but the reasons why we need the power are threefold. First, there can be an argument about whether a young person coming into this country is under 17 or under 18 or over 18 or over 19. Such a power would avoid that debate. Secondly, as has been said, children can come into the country by themselves and I think that it is right in such circumstances that we at least have the power to fingerprint them.

There is a third set of circumstances in which such a power might be useful, so it is sensible to take the power now in primary legislation. There is some evidence of fraud by those who seek asylum under different names moving children between them. Some asylum applicants claim for other people's children. It is necessary for us at least to have the power to take fingerprints to connect particular children to particular adults for reasons of social security fraud and so that when children are brought in at ports and, as the evidence sometimes suggests, abandoned, we may find it necessary to fingerprint children so that they can be connected to particular adults.

We do not want to fingerprint children--especially young ones--but I regret that it is a power which we must take. We shall have to see how our new tighter measures work and what they reveal in the way of difficulties before we decide administratively whether they should be used and, if so, how.

Mr. Madden : The Minister is well aware of the widely held view that the act of fingerprinting inevitably criminalises the person seeking political asylum and that it is offensive, especially when applied to young people and to children. In Committee, the Minister resisted an age limit. We were pressing that no young person under the age of 18 should be fingerprinted, but the Minister made it clear that it would be left to the discretion of immigration officers. Will he reconsider, because many of us believe that the offence would be reduced if there were a clear rule that no child below a certain age should be fingerprinted in any circumstances?

Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman covers many of the issues with which I have just dealt. I know that there is a feeling that the taking of fingerprints somehow criminalises, but that view is peculiar to this country. It is a normal method of identification in other countries and it is, of course, the effective way which is available to us. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would object to our having pictures of every asylum seeker, but it is difficult to check 60,000 pictures. However, 60,000 fingerprints can easily be matched, collated and compared by experts. The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to abandon the one method which would enable us to check multiple claims, which will

Column 252

either catch people who are being dishonest or clear the names of the vast numbers of asylum seekers who are entirely honest. The taking of fingerprints is a much more sensible, speedy and comfortable way to ensure that we have a proper record of who an individual is and to connect him with a particular time of entry and to discover with whom he entered than the lengthy inquisitorial questionnaires for trying to establish names and relationships, especially of a group of tired asylum seekers who have arrived at Heathrow late at night.

I understand the objection to fingerprinting, but there is no objection when it is common practice for every asylum seeker to be fingerprinted. The objection is emotional--although understandably so--rather than realistic and practical.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

Housing

Mr. Fraser : I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 3, leave out from and' to end of line 4 and insert

informs the housing authority dealing with his application '. Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this we shall take the following amendments :

No. 22, in page 3, leave out line 19 and insert--

(a) are informed by the applicant that he is an asylum-seeker, but'.

No. 13, in page 3, line 31, after accommodation', insert and his circumstances were the same as when the original application was made ;'.

No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end add--

(9) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above "available"-- (

(a) shall only include accommodation occupied at the time an application is made ; and

(b) accommodation currently occupied shall not qualify as being "available" unless it is available for more than 28 days.'. No. 14, in page 4, line 23, at end add--

(9) For the purposes of this section accommodation "however temporary" shall not include accommodation at present occupied where an applicant under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 is threatened with homelessness within 28 days from the date of his application.'. No. 23, in schedule 1, page 8, line 5, leave out from made' to They' and insert

are informed by the applicant that he is an asylum-seeker'. No. 24, in page 9, line 5, leave out or is not'.

No. 17, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert

which the applicant receives notification under section 64 of the Housing Act 1985.'.

No. 18, in page 9, line 29, after requested', insert in writing'.

No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first an' and insert a housing'.

No. 20, in page 9, line 38, after inform', insert both'.

Mr. Fraser : This is a large group of amendments and the proposals are not all the same, so I shall break down the group.

Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 would remove from local authorities any duty to make inquiries about whether someone was a seeker of political asylum. Of course, if a local authority in the course of its ordinary homelessness inquiries becomes aware that a person is seeking political asylum, and if the facts behind his

Next Section

Home Page