| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 268
Hon. Members expressed concern on behalf of voluntary bodies about our proposals, but the Bill does not present any disincentive to voluntary organisations to continue making provisions.9.30 pm
Amendment No. 17 seeks to alter the provisions in the Bill relating to security of tenure. The Bill provides that, in the case of an asylum seeker, the right to a secure local authority tenancy or a housing authority or private assured tenancy does not arise until 12 months after notification to the landlord by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the applicant has ceased to be an asylum seeker--though the landlord's discretion remains. As I said before, it is illogical that someone should be able to obtain a secure or assured tenancy until their right to remain in this country has been permanently established.
Amendments Nos. 18, 19, and 20 deal with safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of information about an asylum seeker, which was debated in Committee at some length. We are of course anxious to preserve the confidentiality of information obtained from the Home Office, and I have made arrangements with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that the normal mode of communicating between the housing authority will be in writing. I am satisfied that there is no need to include that provision in the Bill. We will make administrative arrangements, but as I gain the impression from Opposition Members that they want to conclude the debate--[ Hon. Members :-- "No."]--I will be happy to explain them in writing.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to clarify that the Secretary of State may pass on information about an asylum seeker only to a housing authority. I am happy to accept that amendment to ensure that the position is made clear in the Bill.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State notifies both the housing authority and the applicant in writing of the outcome of the application for asylum. We believe that that is unnecessary, because paragraph 6(3) of schedule 1 already makes that clear. I therefore urge the House to accept amendment No. 19 but to reject the others.
Mr. Fraser : As we want to make progress, I will comment only briefly on the Minister's remarks. He reads well, but the people who write for him do not write very well. When the hon. Gentleman expresses compassion about people on the housing waiting list, he should remember some of his Department's other records. The Minister represents a Department which has the worst local authority housing construction record in peacetime this century. We do not hear much from the Government about people on the waiting list except in debates such as this. The Minister represents a Department which has also increased the number of homeless by 300 per cent. since his party took office. Although the hon. Gentleman reads well, he does not learn very well.
When the Minister says that the status of asylum seekers should be relevant to local authority consideration, he repeats the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The moment that status
Column 269
becomes a prime consideration, discriminatory factors become relevant. An asylum seeker's housing application should be considered on its own merits.The best construction that can be put on clause 3 is that it represents a disincentive to those who seek political asylum, and the worst--judging from some of the Minister's remarks--is that it is intended to serve as a scapegoat for the Government's appalling housing record.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made : No. 28, in page 3, line 37, at end insert-- (5A) For the purposes of this section and that Schedule a person who makes a claim for asylum--
(a) becomes an asylum-seeker when his claim is at any time (whether before or after the coming into force of this section) recorded by the Secretary of State as having been made, and
(b) ceases to be an asylum-seeker when his claim is recorded by the Secretary of State as having been finally determined or abandoned.'.-- [Mr. Yeo.]
Clause 4
Curtailment of leave to enter or remain
Sir Timothy Raison : I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 25, after person', insert
, other than a student on a recognised course,'.
Clause 4 provides that when a person who already has limited leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom has his or her claim for asylum refused, the Secretary of State for the Home Department may curtail that limited leave for him or her to remain. Amendment No. 31 is designed to exempt students on recognised courses from the risk of removal until they complete their courses. Whatever may be the arguments in respect of clause 4 as a whole, there is a strong case for exempting students. My hon. Friend the Minister seemed to concede that pretty fully in Committee, when he said :
"Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not obliged to curtail leave and there will be various cases in which he will not wish to do so, such as that of a bona fide student who has made an unsuccessful application before the end of his course because of events at home."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 December 1991 ; c. 156.]
What could be clearer than that? Why should we not exempt the bona fide student?
I have been trying to imagine a case in which a student might be able to abuse the system if my amendment were accepted. He might try to use asylum to prolong his stay, but, if his case for asylum were not accepted, he would have to leave at the end of his course, just as he would if he had not made a bid. If it were accepted, he would not have to go anyway.
It could, I suppose, be argued that the student could delay his asylum application until nearer the end of the course, so in a sense the problem does not arise. As I understand it, however, the draft immigration rules require prompt and full disclosure of material factors. The Government seem to be saying that if someone is going to apply for asylum, he should do so sooner rather than later. In the light of that, it would surely be most unjust for a student to have to give up his studies as a result of an unsuccessful asylum application.
No doubt my hon. Friend will point out that this is no more than a discretionary power ; he will say that the key
Column 270
word is "may", and that the provision will not be applied unjustly. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would apply it unjustly, as I have great respect for him and for the fairness that he exercises ; the applicant, however, may not be aware of his sterling qualities. He may simply recoil at the possibility of losing his education, and feel that he cannot take the risk entailed in that. In such circumstances, a student might withhold a perfectly reasonable application for asylum--an application that would succeed. Surely it cannot be right to use the possibility of the termination of his course to deter the exercise of what is accepted as a legitimate right.It is, of course, possible that my amendment is not valid technically. I feel, however, that the case for my argument is overwhelming ; indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that in Committee. My amendment neither should nor would help a bogus student to prolong his stay ; there are other ways of dealing with that. I hope that my hon. Friend--who has handled the whole issue so sensitively--will feel able to accept the amendment.
Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : I support the amendment. Those of us whose constituencies contain universities know that such circumstances arise. A young person may arrive at university, intending to stay for two or three years, with no knowledge of what may happen in his country of origin. He cannot plan when to apply for asylum ; that will be dictated by the situation in his country. Those who remember the Iran-Iraq war will recall that students from both countries found themselves in very difficult personal circumstances. I cannot imagine a case in which someone could use an application to act other than reasonably. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) pointed out, those who apply for asylum and are unsuccessful will stay only for as long as their education visas last ; there is no way in which they will abuse the system.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted--or, at least, that its spirit will be accepted, and it can be altered in another place.
Mr. Darling : We support the amendment. Both the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), being former Ministers, speak with some authority, and I hope that they have persuaded the Minister to accept the amendment. We should remember that the whole point of clause 4 is to provide a disincentive : the applicant must be aware that, once asylum has been applied for, he runs the risk of having his existing leave curtailed. The intention is to discourage someone from applying for asylum. It is not just students who are in this difficult position. Visitors sometimes find that they are in the same position. A couple of my constituents have visitors from Croatia where the situation will change between the time that they entered the United Kingdom and the time that they are due to leave this country. The point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury about students has even more force. Events may have dramatically changed in the home country after the lapse of three or four years.
If the Minister intends to say that we should not worry because of the Secretary of State's discretion, I ought to mention to him that if the point of clause 4 is to discourage such applications and it then becomes known that the discretion is to be used generally, it will undermine the
Column 271
Government's reason for including clause 4. If there is general agreement that if a student applies for asylum he or she should be allowed to continue the course, even if the application is unsuccessful, I cannot see what harm will be done. The right hon. Gentleman dealt very well with the possible abuses that the Minister might conjure up. I look forward with interest to the ingenuity that the Minister will use to reject the amendment. What would be even better, however, would be for the Minister to tell us that if additional amendments are to be tabled in another place, this one will join them.Mr. Peter Lloyd : My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) made a sympathetic and persuasive case, though the different categories are dealt with in the rules rather than in the primary legislation. We do not intend routinely to use curtailment in all cases where there is extant limited leave. Discretion will be exercised, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The bona fide student who continues to meet the requirements of the rules is a good example of someone whose leave will not be curtailed. That is not the only example. The same will apply to business men, work permit holders and others.
However, we cannot assume that all those who gained entry as students should not have their leave curtailed. Some of them may have no real intention to pursue a serious course of study and to leave this country when it is completed. A specific exemption would only encourage more dubious attempts to get into that category. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that he could not imagine that there would be no merit in any student's claim to be a student. If he had seen as many cases as I have of people who gained entry as students, but who have not attended college for many months, sometimes even years, I believe that he would modify his opinion. There are people who gained leave as a student but who are not students at present, and they have not been pursuing a course of study for a considerable period of time.
Mr. Lester : The amendment refers to students being granted leave until they have completed their course. Therefore, one assumes that the students about whom we are talking are pursuing a course of study at a university or college.
Mr. Lloyd : The trouble is that they do not complete the course and that they have no real intention of doing so. As soon as the authorities contact them, many of these people embark on yet another course.
The new power is aimed primarily at those who enter as visitors and seek asylum shortly afterwards. It is right, however, to be able to consider other categories. Even though I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, I can assure him that the Secretary of State will not automatically curtail the leave of a student simply because his asylum claim has failed. If a student appeals, due to the refusal of his asylum claim, he can at the same time appeal against the curtailment of his leave as a student. His case would, however, already have been very sympathetically considered if he was in good standing with his college and if his desire to complete his studies was convincing.
I am sorry that I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, but I hope that he has been somewhat encouraged by what I have said.
Column 272
Mr. Maclennan : I listened with care to what the Under-Secretary said, but he has not answered the case put by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) ; nor has he said what mischief would arise from accepting the amendment. If his concern is with those who are claiming to be students but are not pursuing a course of study, that would negate the effect of the exclusion. They would be subject to the law if they were not students.
The other place would be wise to return to this matter, as there is strong support for it in this House.
9.45 pm
Mr. Lloyd : I understand what the hon. Gentleman said. However, that would mean that it would be open to the so-called student to appeal in the ordinary appellate system and there would be an opportunity for that person to remain in this country for a considerable time in the queue for the hearing of the appeal.
Sir Timothy Raison : With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
I am not persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that this would be a way of policing students who are trying to abuse the system by not pursuing their studies or are trying to stay indefinitely. I remember from my Home Office days that that problem exists and it was one with which I had to grapple. However, I do not think that this is the mechanism for dealing with it.
I know that the House wants to get on to Third Reading and I do not want to prolong matters, but, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, this has not been fully answered. It would be desirable if the matter were pursued in the other place and I hope that it will be. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7
Carriers' liability for transit passengers
Amendment made : No. 29, in page 6, line 30, leave out or any similar characteristic' and insert
, origin or other connection with any particular country or territory'.-- [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
Clause 9
Commencement
Amendment made : No. 30, in page 7, line 21, leave out or any similar characteristic' and insert
, origin or other connection with any particular country or territory'.-- [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
Schedule 1
Housing of Asylum-Seekers : Supplementary
Amendment made : No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first an' and insert a housing'.-- [Mr. Fraser.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
9.47 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks at the end of the consideration of the Bill. Other business has
Column 273
prevented me from playing a bigger role in the earlier proceedings. I want to place on record on behalf of my constituents my opposition to the Bill.I remember the first debate on the Bill, just a couple of months ago. In almost his opening sentence, the Home Secretary assured the House that there was no question of the Bill playing the numbers game. The preparation for the Bill began in the summer, when the tabloid Tory newspapers made it clear that part of their pre-electioneering was to play a racist card by supporting the introduction of this Bill. There was a spate of stories about the country being "swamped" or of there being "too many asylum seekers" and of the "scandal" of thousands of "bogus" applicants.
On 3 November, The Sunday Times managed to combine nearly all those elements in one sentence when it said :
"Tory MPs, particularly those with seats in the Midlands, plan to fight Labour hard on its pledge to oppose the government's legislation cracking down on immigrants seeking bogus political asylum."
Virtually all those elements were contained in a single sentence in one article. Of course, that is not an objective appraisal. As anyone who has read the Committee proceedings or heard the debates in the Chamber will know, the word "bogus" is not an objective term but a purely subjective analysis which changes as do the rules and regulations, which the Government regularly tighten. People who do not come under the ambit of these rules and regulations are described as bogus.
What have we been talking about in terms of numbers, an issue with which the Home Secretary began his contribution--45,000 or 50,000 asylum seekers last year? What is that? It is perhaps the gate at a Manchester City/Manchester United local derby football match. The reality is that only about 5 per cent. of the estimated 17.5 million refugees in the world get as far as or seek to come to Europe, and only a small fraction of those ever apply to come to the United Kingdom. Those statistics are a matter of public record, but it is hard to find them reflected in many of the newspaper articles that I mentioned, especially those in the tabloids in recent months. It is also a matter of public record, because the Home Office admitted it to me in a parliamentary answer some months ago, that in 20 of the past 27 years--from 1964 to 1990--there was a net outflow of people emigrating from this country. For those who wish to know, during those 27 years there was a net outflow of 786,000 people. That is a matter of public record, so there is no question of this country, in the immortal words of the former Prime Minister, being "swamped by people of an alien culture".
The Bill has been designed to make asylum not easier but harder. It will be made harder because of carrier fines and the associated regulations. The speeding up of the process which is part of the Bill does not bode well for a fair hearing. The Minister will know of a case that I raised, which has occupied staff in his office in recent weeks. It involved a Sikh constituent who, if I had not intervened, would have been sent initially to Germany and possibly back to the Punjab, where his brother was killed some months ago.
Column 274
I was able to raise the case because of the powers of intervention that hon. Members still have, but those powers will be side-stepped by the tightening of the procedures and by the denial of an oral hearing which the Bill will make law. If, in that case or in future cases, the so-called removal to the port of first entry is to be the norm, and if no assurances are received from the country to which the person is sent, I predict that the Bill will result in people being sent to their death.As Nye Bevan used to say, one does not need to look into a crystal ball if one can read the book. We know about the famous case of the Tamil seekers after refugee status--five were sent back to Sri Lanka and four were tortured. That is a matter of record. I could mention other cases, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak. Any hon. Member who has a substantial proportion of constituents with families residing in other countries could provide case after case to show that the Bill will put at risk the lives and safety of constituents' families.
As I said, the Bill was politically aimed at the pre-election period. The newspapers that give support and succour to the Tory party played their role well, not only by softening public opinion in advance of the House's consideration of the Bill, but by poisoning workers' minds with their repeated stories of con men, of racketeering and of massive social security fraud. How those stories seemed to escalate in the weeks before the Queen's Speech when the Bill was first introduced in the House.
We are talking about people fleeing persecution by some of the world's worst dictatorships, fleeing countries racked by civil war under repressive regimes often supported and funded by countries in the west in general, and even by this country in particular. I have been politically active for 20 years. The first case with which I dealt as an individual was that of refugees from Chile, who had arrived in Coventry in the early 1970s with no clothes and no furniture. My grandfather's radio, which is still playing, was given to the children of the first Chilean refugee family to get as far as Coventry in the early 1970s. Throughout that period and until today, we have received families from Africa, Asia, the Punjab, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and other countries. The Bill would make the job of hon. Members that much harder--it is designed to do so. Many Tory Members have written--not least my neighbour the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who wrote an article a few days ago in a Coventry magazine stating that it was because hon. Members were clogging up Home Office procedure with their interventions that the Bill had to be introduced.
We know why the Bill has been introduced. It seeks to criminalise those who come to this country seeking political asylum. As "Newsnight" showed last night, several hundred of the people who get as far as these shores find that Britain's hospitality leads them to the detention centre at Harmsworth or to prison, where they languish for weeks or months.
I make no apology for saying that the Bill legitimises and underpins the arguments of racists in this country, which, if unchecked, could lead to the horrors that have occurred in France and Germany in recent months, where people have been burnt out of hostels and there have been several attacks. Just before Christmas, a black woman in my constituency--Mrs. Morrison, who is not a refugee--was threatened with a baseball bat, her phone and television cables were cut four times and she had beans and grease thrown at her windows and dog excreta smeared on
Column 275
her doormat. She fears for her own life and that of her 12-year-old son. If the Bill is enacted, the proposals that it contains will legitimise, underpin and give support to racist organisations such as the National Front and the British National party, which seek to take on to the streets the racist and neo-Nazi ideas that unfortunately gain succor from those who play the numbers game in the House or elsewhere.As a socialist, I believe that people who are fleeing war and persecution should be welcomed into this country as they have been so many times by past generations. Our parents and grandparents welcomed the people from Europe, eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa who were seeking to flee persecution. It should not only be Russian composers and South African athletes with friends in the Tory Cabinet who are allowed here in a matter of days : all those who flee persecution should have a right to seek and find asylum and refuge in this country.
I hope that, when Opposition spokesmen make their wind-up speeches later, and when, as I hope, Labour form a Government in the weeks and months ahead, they will make it clear that they will not only make it easier and quicker for refugees to be granted the right to stay in this country, but withdraw support from those regimes from whom people are fleeing--such administrations should include the Governments of Sri Lanka and India as long as oppression continues in the Kashmir and Punjab--and embark on a sufficiently large programme of public works to build homes, hospitals and schools so that unemployment and other social conditions do not allow racism to breed in the cities and towns of Britain.
There is no justification for the Bill. The Home Secretary seems to take it as conclusive proof that anyone who arrives with bogus documents is, by definition, a bogus refugee or asylum seeker. Most people fleeing a country in which there is oppression do not have time to queue up at a British embassy or high commission for the necessary paperwork. The very nature of their departure means that they often seek refuge here via a third country. The fast track proposed in the Bill will weaken or even fatally flaw the ability of such people to seek refuge in this country.
It is a nasty little Bill, and the House should drop it into the dustbin tonight. If it is enacted, I hope that a future Labour Government will give a categorical pledge to repeal it and the earlier racist legislation on which it is built. I wish to ensure that families in my constituency and others up and down the country are united instead of divided, as they are at present. I want to ensure that those who come here to save their lives, those who have been restricted and suppressed in their own countries, are not further restricted and suppressed when they seek refuge in this country, which has traditionally been a haven for refugees and, in my opinion, should continue to be such a haven.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Column 276
10 pmMr. Maclennan : The House wishes to come to a conclusion on this Bill tonight.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has just spoken with very great passion and feeling. I do not believe that what we have heard from him was the least bit simulated. He spoke with conviction, and he spoke for many people--people outside this House as well as in it--who share his abhorrence of the measure that Parliament is passing with so little scrutiny.
Today the House is being asked to conclude its deliberations against a background of Government uncertainty about the administration of the provisions of this legislation, which is almost unparalleled and unbelievable. When the Bill was being introduced the House was advised that the prime responsibility for representing and giving advice to people seeking asylum would rest with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Today we have been told that this is not so. The whole foundation of the argument put forward by the Minister was shot from under his feet by himself. At lunch time today the Minister published amendments to the immigration rules. In doing so at such a late hour he made it impossible for the House properly to consider the amendments and to decide whether, in the whole new framework of rules, the Bill is appropriate. That is not the way in which the House should deliberate in respect of such a sensitive matter.
We have not received from the Minister, either today or on an earlier occasion, a direct answer to the accusation of the Commission for Racial Equality that at least some of the Bill's provisions are racially discriminatory and are counter to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is a very serious matter that the chairman of this Government- appointed body, Mr. Michael Day, should make such a charge. I refer in particular to clause 4, which relates to the duties of local authorities-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has not been so closely involved at all stages of the debate on this Bill as to know what Mr. Michael Day and the Commission for Racial Equality have said about it. That body, which is charged by statute and was appointed by the present Government to protect our society from racial discriminatory measures, has made the charge to which I have just referred. It is a very serious charge, and the Government have not answered it. No doubt, however, it will come up again in another place.
Upon that House falls a heavy responsibility to ameliorate this rotten little measure, which does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Ministers who brought it forward. I should say in passing that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office has undertaken his role with honour and distinction. He has attempted the impossible by at least seeking to explain, if not to justify, what is in the Government's mind. Justification would be impossible. The Home Secretary, of course, has nothing to say. The Home Secretary is the Home Secretary. [Laughter.] I use a rhetorical device that Mr. Edward Pearce is accused of having used too frequently.
I hope that this Bill will come to grief in another place and that it will come back to this House much improved. Those in the other place who have experience of the law and there are a number of former Home Secretaries
Column 277
there who have direct experience of handling these matters--would do well to justify their revising role by making hefty revisions to the Bill before it returns to this House.10.4 pm
Mr. Madden : As I have been in the Chamber throughout today's proceedings and attended every sitting of the Standing Committee, I should like to take this opportunity again to place on record my opposition to the Bill.
Every time we consider the Bill, it becomes clearer that the provisions are wholly unnecessary and unjustified. It has become clear today that it may well be impossible to administer the provisions and, clearly, the Bill may have the most dangerous consequences for the men, women and even children who seek political asylum in the United Kingdom.
Last year, we were told by the so-called popular press, and by many right- wing Conservative Members, that hundreds of thousands--possibly millions-- of people were queuing up to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. That propaganda campaign caused widespread alarm among many sections of the community at the prospect of all those people flooding into the country seeking political asylum. We were told that many of the applicants--indeed, the majority of them--were bogus, and we have heard that again today. How can that be squared with the Government's information that nine of every 10 people seeking political asylum are genuine--indeed, must be genuine because they are granted exceptional need to remain or full political asylum? We know from the Government's information that the bulk of applicants are genuine and we have no reason to believe that, in future, the majority will be bogus.
The Government have tried to persuade us that the Bill is necessary to allow applications for political asylum to be considered more quickly. None of us supports the system which has meant that many seeking political asylum have had to wait up to a year--in some cases, for several years--to have their applications considered. None of us can justify arrangements whereby appeals can take months and months to be held. But if the Government want to expedite political asylum applications, they can do so very easily. They could have done it years ago by devoting more resources to enabling applications to be considered quickly and efficiently and by appointing more officials. It is clear that the real purpose of the Bill has nothing to do with the creation of a fair and efficient system for considering political asylum cases, and everything to do with political opportunism and the Government's desire to pander to right-wing sections of the Conservative party--which have been in evidence again today.
The Bill is without friends. Opposition to it is considerable. Its opponents range from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality which, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, has warned that the Bill may well breach the Race Relations Act 1976.
The Bill may also breach our obligations under international conventions. It will certainly intimidate men, women and even children and deter them from applying
Column 278
for political asylum in Britain. The message that the Bill sends out clearly and loudly is "You are unwelcome here, go away." The Bill is part of a process that is now under way to create a Fortress Europe, so that the European Community can turn its back on those who are seeking refuge from violence, from persecution, from war, and from torture.The Bill is unnecessary, dangerous and offensive. How, in 1992, can the House agree to a system whereby we routinely photograph and fingerprint even children? Those provisions are obscene. As we have heard today, the housing provisions will create enormous distress and difficulty for many families waiting for decisions on their political asylum applications.
This is a bad, squalid Bill. I hope very much that it never reaches the statute book but, if it does, I hope that the next Labour Government will repeal it.
10.10 pm
Mr. Boateng : This is indeed a squalid, unworthy little Bill. It is discriminatory both in its intent and in its effect. It has been given a thorough going-over in Committee and in the House. Some concessions have been wrung out of the Government, but, nevertheless, it remains an unpleasant Bill. It remains a piece of legislation, the effect of which is to put this country in breach of its international obligations.
Earlier, reference was made to the specificity of the provisions. The international provisions which the Bill causes us to breach are article 19(4)(C) of the Council of Europe's social charter and the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 97, two articles of international law on which this country has been obliged to renege in pursuit of the Government's purpose--a purpose which does the House no credit.
At this time of the year, we in the Christian calendar celebrate the flight of Our Lord and his parents, delivered from Herod, into Egypt. At this time of the year, we might reflect on the Bill, because one can be in no doubt that if Our Lord and his parents were to seek to gain entry into the United Kingdom, they would have great difficulty. They would be turned away at the gates. If they were admitted, they would not only find themselves in danger of being fingerprinted--Mary, Joseph and child ; such are the provisions of the Bill--but, were they to obtain temporary accommodation in a church or synagogue in excess of 28 days, they would be denied local authority housing.
This is a strange measure--strange because we have not had established in the House a sufficient reason for introducing a measure of this nature, the extent of which is so thoroughly discreditable. There is still time for the Government to make a better Bill in another place. They can begin by getting rid of clause 3 and its impact on existing housing legislation. Housing and immigration do not mix in terms of the functions of the House in creating new law. They should never have been intermingled in such a way, and they make the Bill even more unworthy than it would otherwise be.
There have been attempts to make the presentation of the Bill more palatable by stating that bona fide refugees need have nothing to fear and that our traditions of hospitality to bona fide refugees remain as they have always been. An attempt has been made to gloss over the more objectionable characteristics of the Bill by saying
Column 279
that they are necessary to preserve the general public good of those settled and permanently resident in the United Kingdom. If that is true, the Government can give credence to their own case by recognising the very real needs that local authority associations of all political hues have made known to the Home Office and to the Department of the Environment. They can recognise the representations of the Churches, the voluntary organisations, the housing associations and the Housing Corporation, which seek to deal with refugees who are legally in this country. They can heed the representations made to the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about the impact in and on our constituencies of the presence of bona fide refugees.What happens in schools in my constituency when young Somali boys and girls, many of them unaccompanied, find themselves there? What happens at Copland school in my constituency where they have had to deal with several score of Somali refugees without a penny more of resources from the Government? When the headmaster, the governing body and the local education authority, under both Conservative and Labour, have written to the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office about this gap in the funding of local authority provision for refugees, answer comes there none. Not a penny more comes from the Department of the Environment, the Home Office or the Department of Education and Science to deal with the resettlement of genuine refugees and to deal with the impact on local communities of refugees with special needs and problems--refugees already traumatised when they enter this country.
If the Government are genuine in their concern for bona fide refugees, they will put their money--our money--where their mouth is and do something to help local authorities tackle the problem. Until they show that they genuinely care about refugees and about the reputation of this country, we will be entitled to treat the Bill, as we do, with contempt.
10.16 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |