House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Mar 1992

Mr. Baker : Only a week ago, we debated the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which allows checks on travellers between the Republic of Ireland and our country. That is a separate matter.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : Before he leaves this point, will my right hon. Friend return to the subject of Mr. Bangemann? I am sure that the House will warmly endorse the robust sentiments that my right hon. Friend has expressed about the need not to weaken the immigration checks or controls, but Mr. Bangemann has thrown down a gauntlet. He has said :

"We will fight like lions against anyone violating these rules"-- he means his rules--and continues :

"I will encourage EEC citizens to sue for damages against Governments which do not lift controls."

There is clearly a clash here. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has taken legal advice, and that he thinks that he will win any case fought in front of the European Court, and that he will continue this robust and admirable stance?

Mr. Baker : The rules are not Mr. Bangemann's rules. What he has said is his view of the interpretation of the rules. What I have expressed today is the collective and considered view of the Government on these matters. At the moment that interpretation is not being challenged. If it is, we shall defend our interpretation robustly.

Column 32

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : Is it part of the legal advice that the Government have received on this matter that our case could be weakened if it were shown that we had a less effective or less strict form of control on the frontier with the Irish Republic than we operate on other internal frontiers with Community members?

Mr. Baker : No. The methods of control on movements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are determined by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is a separate consideration, and does not bear upon it.

Mr. Hattersley : I am very much on the Home Secretary's side in terms of competence and what the EC is entitled to do and not entitled to do. However, I hope that he will not overstate his case. Movement between the Irish Republic and Great Britain is determined not by the Act but by such factors as the treaties governing the Community and by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is only--how can I put it?--the icing on the cake.

Mr. Baker : Although there is an area of free movement, checks can be operated on certain travellers, and that is the important point. I am glad that we shall get some support from the Labour party, and I hope that we shall also have support in our interpretation of article 8A and its application to the movement across frontiers.

The House recognises that Europe is a magnet for the rest of the world, because of our living standards, our welfare system, our free speech, our access to justice, our open and democratic way of doing things. The living standards of Europe are infinitely higher than those of most of the rest of the world, and, to be realistic, are likely to remain so for a very, very long time to come. This inevitably makes Europe an immensely attractive place to live in. Europe cannot be open house to the world. There are already millions of irregular immigrants in Europe. It is essential that all these problems are addressed and are dealt with. Otherwise, there will be all the political and social difficulties which we now see in some countries in Europe. At this moment of great uncertainty, I am sure that it is right that we should not weaken any of our existing controls. Indeed, we should strengthen them, as we are doing. If we did not do this, we would be betraying the basic interests of our country.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, and if there are major interruptions during the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it will be difficult to call them all.

4.15 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : I wish to make it clear at the outset that it is my strongly held view that the two matters being discussed--the acceptance of asylum seekers into the United Kingdom and immigration policy in the United Kingdom--are essentially for the United Kingdom Government alone. In my view, they do not come within the competence of the European Community, and nor should they. The United Kingdom must exercise its own frontier controls and, as

Column 33

the Home Secretary said, they must include the right to check on the entry of European Community nationals. If we were not able to do that, we would be unable to exercise any meaningful control. I shall go slightly further, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with these matters when he replies. On many occasions I have expressed my concern in the House about what I can describe only as informal arrangements which amount to something very much like Community competence. I accept that, in the absence of a treaty obligation, such arrangements cannot be taken before a court and cannot be dictated by the Commission.

I fear, however, that, through the Trevi and Schengen agreements, there is a danger--the Home Secretary will be aware of it if he listens to me describing it--that Home Secretaries or ministers of the interior meet together in private, come to an agreement that they will impose their collective decisions on individual Parliaments and then use the majorities that they possess in those Parliaments to provide a pan-European solution to problems. As well as being opposed to any formal intervention or interference by the Community, we are opposed to the Schengen and Trevi technique of coming to an informal agreement that is then individually imposed.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : I am concerned inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman accepts the sovereignty of the European court interpreting the competence of the Commission. We understand clearly from the Commissioner's own words that the matter will come before the European Court at some stage for a decision. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman, having accepted the sovereignty of the court, is able to recognise the possibility that the court will not accept his interpretation, or that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the strong words that the House clearly accepts. What, then, is the policy? We have lost control over our borders, have we not?

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Gentleman is arguing--he is entitled so to do--the principles of membership of the European Community. When we accepted membership, with all that it implied, we also accepted jurisdiction on certain matters through the courts. The best advice available to the Opposition, like that available to the Government--this is one of the few things on which the Home Secretary and I will agree today-- is that Community competence does not extend to these matters. I hope and believe that that is the position. I regard it as a necessary provision which enables us to maintain our own rights over our own border control, immigration policy and asylum policy.

Mr. Spearing : My right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary will appreciate that a point of major importance has been made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the interpretation of article 8A, as enunciated by the Home Secretary--when taken with the other articles with which he and, I believe, the majority of hon. Members concur--is not acceptable in any case which comes before the European Court of Justice, the logic of such a position, if it were arrived at, would be the introduction of checks and identity cards? That would be wholly alien to the population of this country. It is a practice that is found elsewhere, but it would not be acceptable here.

Column 34

Mr. Hattersley : I am wholly opposed to identity cards for reasons that I shall not go into today. I rely on the situation that my hon. Friend has described not arising. I believe that the best advice available to both sides of the House is that the independence of our decisions on these matters can be preserved.

Of the two communications, the one which concerns the right of asylum obviously possesses the special importance of, even now, being examined in this House, and is even now the subject of decisions which I hope that we shall soon take as to how the asylum laws and regulations are to be updated and improved. It is to that directive that I wish to devote most of the time at my disposal today, pausing only to say that, as the Home Secretary tells us that revision of this matter is an urgent necessity--a term that he used three times--perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us why the Bill, which has passed through this House, has been held up for so long before being debated in the other place.

Before talking about asylum, I wish to spend a moment on the other directive--the directive concerning immigration. I repeat again my strongly held view that immigration must be a matter for determination by individual member states. There cannot be a common Community immigration policy mandatory on all Community members. I have read what the Commission has to say on the subject of co-operation between Community members, and I understand that in some ways that is desirable.

I was particularly attracted by what the Select Committee said about one aspect of co-operation--the need for common policies throughout the Community on family reunion--but the most urgent reform needed in British immigration law does not so much concern common policies uniform throughout the Community on family reunion as regulations uniform to all British residents in respect of family reunion.

Mr. Ashby : Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of relaxing our firm but fair rules on immigration? How would he relax them, and how many additional immigrants would he allow to enter the United Kingdom under such relaxed rules?

Mr. Hattersley : That shows every sign of being a carefully prepared question and it possesses all the subtlety of Conservative central office. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, he will find that I shall answer all those questions. I suspect that, when he was primed, he was told to intervene rather later in my speech. If he can abide in patience for a moment or two, he will hear exactly what I have to say on the subject.

I was referring to the necessity for a United Kingdom immigration policy and policies concerning family reunion which are uniform for all residents in and citizens of the United Kingdom. I will remind the House how the present situation works. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) clearly makes a study of such matters, and it will be of particular interest to Conservative Members who have always taken a robust view on the right of the British citizen in England as distinct from Community rights. At present there are absurd anomalies which discriminate against British citizens. If an Englishman living in England marries a foreign national, his wife does not have the automatic and unqualified right to join him

Column 35

in this country. If a German living in England or, for that matter, a Greek, Spaniard, Dane, Belgian or Dutchman, marries a foreign national, that citizen of the Community has the right for his wife automatically and without qualification to join him in this country. However, if a British citizen goes and lives in Germany, he possesses the right for his third-country nationality wife to join him in Germany. He possesses rights which he does not possess in his homeland--the land of his birth, the United Kingdom. That seems to be a simple absurdity.

Mr. Budgen : Why?

Mr. Hattersley : I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is surprised to hear that. An Englishman should possess the rights in England that a German possesses in England. It is preposterous to say that Germans can do things here which are denied to English citizens. If the hon. Gentleman wants to defend that proposition, I will give way.

Mr. Budgen : Undoubtedly the procedures are not common or particularly logical, but they arise from the circumstances of each nation state having to come to terms with the historical obligations that it has given to various citizens. It is better for a legislature to keep muddling along and doing the best that it can in the circumstances rather than having a thoroughly defective, if logical, overall solution.

Mr. Hattersley : The phrase "to keep muddling along" seems a good way of describing a system which allows European foreign nationals privileges that are not available to the British. I make no bones about the intention of the next Labour Government to end that kind of anomaly. In short, British citizens have fewer rights now in the United Kingdom than other Community nationals, and more rights in the Community than in the United Kingdom. That absurd anomaly will be rectified by the next Labour Government.

Sir Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) : The right hon. Gentleman said that the right of foreigners to bring their non-national wives here derives from the fact that that is Community and not domestic law. It is not strictly the case that Community immigration law is concerned only with Community nationals. It extends in this case to their families. The right hon. Gentleman says firmly that if a Labour Government came to power, they would end that anomaly. I am not sure how, because it is hard to see how they could force other member states to change their policies.

Mr. Hattersley : The present law states that we can treat our own citizens as badly as we like, but we must treat Community citizens rather better. I believe that it is important to treat our own citizens as well as we treat Community citizens.

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that a future Labour Government, if elected, would abolish the primary purpose rule? If so, they would take away the central plank of our immigration controls. What would the right hon. Gentleman wish to see put in its place?

Column 36

Mr. Hattersley : A rule that would enable an immigration official to make an objective and clearly described judgment as to whether a marriage was genuine or bogus.

Sir John Wheeler : That is the primary purpose rule.

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand how the rule works. It requires an immigration officer to read the mind of an applicant. I am opposed to laws which require officials to read the minds of British citizens. There should be clearly determined rules to show whether a marriage is bogus or genuine according to accepted criteria. We shall, of course, keep parties to bogus marriages out of this country-- [Hon. Members :-- "Ah."]--and rather more calmly than the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), by applying objective rules rather than by allowing officials to pretend to be able to read applicants' minds.

Mr. Kenneth Baker : The right hon. Gentleman is making an important statement. He owes it to the House and to the country to explain the magic of the objective rules that he mentions. What objective rules could determine whether or not a marriage is genuine? I have seen how our entry clearance officers deal with such matters at their posts overseas. They take difficult decisions with great care. If the right hon. Gentleman has some magic objective rules, let us hear about them. The clear advice that I received was that if the rules or procedures are varied there would be a substantial inflow of fiance es into this country.

Mr. Hattersley : That is not happening in other countries. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example of a rule change that I regard as absolutely essential. The Kumar judgment says that a man can be refused entry to this country because the immigration authorities doubt the genuineness of his marriage. The courts ruled that if a man showed continued devotion over a period of years, that ought to be taken as evidence that his was a genuine marriage. Cases are being taken to court time and again. The courts are accepting the previous ruling of the High Court and the Lords of Appeal--against the will, objections, and postponements of the Home Office. That is the kind of change that must be made.

Asylum is the central issue. As the Home Secretary knows, the next Labour Government will operate an asylum policy which will draw a sharp distinction between bogus and genuine asylum seekers. It will ensure that the genuine refugee finds a safe haven here, and will rigorously exclude the bogus applicant. I wish to deal with how that can best be done, referring specifically to a page in one of the two directives that have been drawn to our attention. The programme concerning asylum policy is dealt with in chapter 4, entitled "Work" : the reference number is SN 4038/91 (WGI 930).

That page of the document deals with all the policies which have been proposed by the Government and examined by the House over the past year, and have been enshrined--more or less--in the Asylum Bill. When we discussed the Bill, I said--I am happy to repeat it today--that the exclusion of bogus applicants was a sensible and honourable objective. That was my view then, and it remains my view. When we last discussed the matters described in the document, the Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment

Column 37

in an attempt to explain how we believed that asylum policy should be operated. We feared then--together with the Churches, the General Council of the Bar, and the Law Society--that the genuine asylum seeker would be excluded, and we were right to express that fear. Our concerns were intensified by the behaviour of the Home Secretary, who sought to deal with the real problem in terms of party advantage and has continued to do so today.

I do not refer only to the pleasure--indeed, glee--with which the right hon. Gentleman has described every hypothesised fraud ; he made one comment that struck me as disgraceful. Heaven knows, it is not my task to defend the Liberal Democrats, but when that party was mentioned, the Home Secretary said, "Of course, we all know that they support an open-door policy." That is a simple slander, and for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss matters in such terms does no credit to him or to the debate.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : My absence from that debate--in which I would have sought to rebut the Home Secretary's slanderous suggestion--was due to the difficulty that I had experienced in establishing contact with the right hon. Gentleman's office to discuss the Representation of the People Act. I think that, once again, he is misleading the House.

Mr. Hattersley : I repeat that the Home Secretary's attitude has not helped our attempts to achieve the good will, common sense and mutually agreed asylum policies that most European Community states have been able to maintain. It is possible that the Home Secretary wants the Asylum Bill to fail. If that is so, he can prevent its passage, but if it is so, let us have no more of the talk that we have heard today about an urgent measure which must be passed speedily.

The Home Secretary must decide whether he wants to make haste in obtaining an Asylum Bill which deals with bogus applicants but protects the geunine asylum seeker, or whether he wants to use the entire operation as an opportunity for what he sees--wrongly, in my opinion--as party advantage.

So that he may make progress, if he chooses to do so, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill which left the House of Commons was radically different from the Bill that received a Second Reading. The Government made five concessions, each representing a change for which the Opposition had asked. If the Home Secretary or any of his hon. Friends wishes to contest that statement, I will gladly give the Hansard references for each demand and each concession. Initially, however, I will simply list the five changes that the Opposition managed to bring about in Committee. I will deal a little later with a sixth change, which concerns the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison).

First, asylum seekers who arrive without documents, and who would originally have been assumed to be fraudulent applicants attempting to evade the regulations, will be able to advance reasonable explanations as to why their documents are deficient. That is now a part of the legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : Perhaps I can save the right hon. Gentleman sometime. That was never part of the Bill, and it is not part of the Bill now. There was a

Column 38

reference to those matters in the draft rules that were issued for discussion along with the Bill. It became perfectly plain that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had chosen not to understand--or were somehow incapable of understanding--that such matters reflected on credibility, which demands that, if there is a satisfactory explanation, that too is taken into account. The only changes made were introduced so that even the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could understand what the Government intended.

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I should have referred to the rule rather than to the Bill. He is repeating exactly the words that he used to me on Third Reading. Before we demanded it, the provision was not in the rules. After we demanded it, it was in the rules. That is a concession.

Secondly, applicants will not, as was originally intended, have the actions of others held against them when they apply to remain here. Thirdly, oral hearings, which, according to the Home Secretary on Second Reading, were to be allowed only after the special adjudicator agreed, are now more easily obtained. Fourthly, the period allowed for lodging an appeal-- [Interruption.] Talking Whips are always a disadvantage. The hon. Member at the Dispatch Box always says that if they want to say something they should say it, and that if they do not they should be quiet. The period allowed for lodging an appeal was originally totally inadequate, but it has now been extended to 10 days, with the small exception of people against whom the refusal notice is personally awarded.

The sixth concession--I think that it is a concession, although the Under- Secretary of State will no doubt be quick to advise me on that as well-- seemed to be made at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury. He asked that the original proposal for leave to remain if the asylum applicant was already here should not be removed--that anyone with leave to remain who applied for asylum should not automatically have that leave to remain cancelled. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he accepted the principle of that proposition. It has not been incorporated through an amendment, but it is no doubt intended that it should be in another place.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I will not get up to correct the right hon. Gentleman every time he is wrong, or we should never get through the debate . My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) raised some interesting points about which he was concerned. We made no change to the Bill : the Bill used the word "may" and left the matter to the discretion of the Home Secretary--I merely described how the Home Secretary intended to exercise it.

Mr. Hattersley : That is exactly what I said. I conceded that the amendment had not been made, and I asked whether an amendment would be made in the House of Lords. I understand from the

Under-Secretary's answer that such an amendment will not be made in the House of Lords.

Most importantly, the Government have been forced by their critics and by force of circumstances totally to reverse their policy on legal advice and legal assistance for and to asylum seekers. The House will recall that the Home Secretary made an announcement on 2 July, when he also announced the provisions of the Bill, that the

Column 39

United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service was to become the sole provider of free advice and free representation. He announced that the green form scheme--legal aid--was to be withdrawn from such cases. It is now the Government's habit to say that the Home Secretary never made that announcement at all, and that he merely observed that he and the Lord Chancellor might possibly be thinking about it. The words make it clear that he intended to withdraw legal aid as the alternative provision of legal advice--the choice--which the asylum seeker might receive. That is no longer his intention. He has not merely changed his position : he has changed it diametrically--legal aid is available, the green form scheme is reprieved, asylum applicants will have a choice of legal adviser, and we rejoice in that change above all others.

There are other outstanding issues which must be examined if we are to have decent asylum policy which is agreed between the parties. Our first concern is the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and its extension to transit passengers. We propose after the election--

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this another debate on the Asylum Bill or is it a debate on the European document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I have heard nothing out of order so far.

Mr. Hattersley : The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was not here when I referred to the paper which deals with all these matters in detail. Item IV of "Summary, work programmes and conclusion" deals with each of the items that I am now discussing. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Thanet, North and to others that it is our intention to reform and revise the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act after the general election. I will tell the Home Secretary at once what some of those changes should be. First, it is clear that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has not worked. If it had worked, the immense increase in the number of asylum seekers to which the Home Secretary constantly draws attention would not have taken place. It is also clear that two major changes are necessary.

First, greater powers must be taken against those who organise and profit from illegal immigration--the entrepreneurs of illegal immigration. Secondly, we must end the preposterous practice of fining airlines, particularly British Airways, sometimes for carrying passengers who are eventually allowed into the United Kingdom by immigration officials. Lord King has expressed his view clearly to the Home Secretary that it is preposterous that British Airways, above all other companies, should bear a financial penalty for carrying passengers who are eventually allowed in.

We must also discuss some more fundamental questions of human rights and asylum. On Second Reading I described myself--Conservative Members will not be surprised to hear the description--as "ambivalent" about fingerprinting. I remain unashamedly ambivalent. My wish--indeed, my determination--to exclude bogus applicants and to prevent double applications makes me favour fingerprinting, but my reluctance to see asylum

Column 40

seekers alone subjected to a process otherwise thought appropriate only for suspected criminals makes me oppose the scheme.

Fingerprinting raises a question about Europe. I understand from the documents--I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer this question when he replies--that we have virtually committed ourselves to fingerprinting because that is the common policy in Europe and it is a way in which we can co-operate in Europe. I hope that we shall have a system of fingerprinting which applies only to those genuinely suspected of being bogus applicants and to those suspected of making multiple applications. As I understand it from the documents, we are now committed to fingerprinting everyone, including infants and babies. Is that the case? Does that seem reasonable?

Mr. Peter Lloyd : To make a change such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would do what some of his hon. Friends suggested that the provision in the Bill does : it would criminalise a category of asylum seekers, who would be fingerprinted not because we were comprehensively checking all asylum seekers, but only because we had some suspicion about their veracity. I can think of no more absurd suggestion in the light of the arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in Committee.

Mr. Hattersley : That is not the argument that my hon. Friends advanced to me. Will the Minister now answer the two questions that I asked? Have we agreed to universal fingerprinting as part of our obligation to Europe, and does the Minister suggest that we fingerprint children, infants and babies in arms?

Mr. Lloyd : No, we do not suggest that we should fingerprint babes in arms, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he had read the report of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. We are taking a power to fingerprint, not because the powers exist elsewhere--although, indeed, they do--but because it is clear from the problems that we have that it is a necessary measure which we ought to have on the statute book. If the right hon. Gentleman were ever to fill the place of the Home Secretary, he would regret that such a measure was not on the statute book before the election. I hope that he will help us to put it there.

Mr. Hattersley : This is becoming a strange debate, because the Under-Secretary of State persists in saying things which I can only describe as palpably untrue. It appears in the Hansard record that he regards it as necessary to fingerprint babies and infants.

Mr. Ashby : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Italy has great problems with bogus asylum seekers and has a policy of fingerprinting all those who are rejected so that they can be identified when they make a further application? If that happens in other countries, why should we not do it in Britain?

Mr. Hattersley : As I said earlier, I do not believe that we have to do it simply because the rest of Europe does it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that such a policy is common European practice, he is taking the argument a stage further--in a direction which will not allow some of his hon. Friends to follow him.

Column 41

I wish to deal with what I regard as the real sticking point in the Asylum Bill. There are problems with fingerprinting. There are problems with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. There are problems with housing. But the real sticking point--the point that we could not accept, the point to which item 4 in the document is related and the one which is unacceptable to us--is the right of appeal. It ought to be the unqualified and automatic right of every asylum applicant for a refusal to be subject to appeal.

What we ask for and what ought to be the centre of any decent Bill which genuinely discriminates between the bogus and the genuine applicant, is exactly what the Home Secretary said on 2 July that he would provide. He said :

"The Bill will make it clear that all those who are turned down in the determination process will be able to appeal while they are in the United Kingdom."--[ Official Report, 2 July 1991 ; Vol. 194, c. 166.]

He said nothing about the leave to appeal, nothing about the adjudicator deciding whether an appeal was possible, and nothing about an argument as to whether a second hearing was appropriate. He said on 2 July that asylum seekers already resident in Britain already enjoyed that automatic right and that it must be extended to all asylum seekers. To us, that is the essential element of a decent Bill.

We are less likely to send the wrong people back with an appeal system than without one. While I understand and support the need for speed, we cannot have speed which prevents genuine justice. There should be a full right of appeal exercisable in the United Kingdom. It must include an oral hearing. All applicants must be given 10 days in which to mount a case. That is the overriding requirement. It is more important than clause 7 and the carriers' liability Act and more important than clause 2 and fingerprinting, important though those issues are.

I believe, as I have always believed, that unanimity in the House on matters such as asylum is far better than contention. If the Secretary of State wants a Bill with the urgency that he continues to stipulate, he can have it so long as he makes those three concessions and justifiable variations. At least one of them is a variation which he announced in his opening statement but from which he later retreated.

I claim again that, if the Home Secretary wants the Bill to founder, the way in which it will founder will be through his being wholly inflexible and unreasonable. If he wants to make progress, he will accept those three requirements, make progress, maintain the Bill and its principles, and get it on the statute book in a reasonable time. I know that that is a stern test of the Home Secretary's integrity, and some will say that it is an unfair test to place upon him, but for once I am prepared to take him at his word. On 13 November, the Home Secretary said :

"I am anxious to find common ground in the country on this matter and I suggest that it is important that common ground is found."--[ Official Report , 13 November 1991 ; Vol. 198, c. 1086.]

I offer the Home Secretary the chance to find it. If he loses his way, he will have only himself to blame. There must be a new asylum Bill. It can be done decently. If the Home Secretary wants to work with us, we will help to make it the decent Bill that the country needs and wants.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you have any power under the protocol of the House to point out to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) an

Column 42

oversight? He promised to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). My hon. Friend asked the shadow Home Secretary to say whether his party intended to relax the immigration rules and, if so, in what way and what would be the impact of that on numbers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order for the Chair. 4.48 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and it is no less a pleasure this afternoon. However, I found the early part of his speech in particular somewhat reminiscent of one of those large rubber balls with which children are minded to play in school playgrounds. It reminded me of a ball filled with hot air that bounced all over the place without any clear sense of direction. His statement that if he were the Home Secretary in a Labour Government that Government would abolish the primary purpose rule is one of the most significant political statements to have been made. The primary purpose rule is an essential component of the control of immigration, especially that from the Indian sub-continent. Without it, this country would assuredly be the recipient--for perfectly understandable reasons--of significant numbers of would-be immigrants.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he would seek to substitute the primary purpose rule with what he called "objective" rules. I wonder what they are. I hope that he will give us the advantage of setting them out in writing so that the House and the nation can examine them. They will most certainly form part of the country's deliberations in the general election.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. Yes, it is a difficult Act to operate, but Home Office officials seek to advise and assist airline carriers and there are many cases, where a person has been brought into the United Kingdom and is subsequently allowed to remain here, when the carrier receives a refund from the Home Office for any financial penalty imposed upon it.

I am glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will be able to give qualified support to the Asylum Bill. That sits rather uncomfortably with the language that he used at the Labour party conference on 2 October last year, when he called the Bill a "squalid appeal to racism" and said :

"We shall fight that proposal with the ferocity that comes from contempt".

It appears that he has had a significant change of heart. Perhaps it has something to do with the imminence of the general election. Like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I shall consider the Commission's communication on immigration and I shall relate it to the work which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has done and the inquiry which it is undertaking into immigration controls at the external frontiers of the Community. I do not seek to prejudice any report that the Committee may eventually produce, but from the evidence that we have taken and visits that we have made, several important matters are clear.

No one can say with certainty to what immigration pressures the European Community will be subject in the

Column 43

future. There are certainly demographic pressures, especially from north Africa, but we must beware the more lurid fears fostered by people such as Le Pen. In parts of Europe, racism and xenophobia are issues of great concern. Although we see no present evidence that those evils are increasing in this country, that is no cause for complacency.

Under the Maastricht treaty, the European Commission will have certain new limited powers over immigration Athough the Commission assured the Committee, during a visit to Brussels, that it did not wish to extend its competence, some member states and

non-governmental organisations in this country want that to happen. It may be inevitable.

Under the external frontiers convention, there will be mutual recognition of visas granted by other member states, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already explained. It is hoped that that will bring other countries' standards on the issue of visas up to those of the United Kingdom. However, there is concern that individuals' rights--perhaps the right of appeal--will suffer as countries adopt the lowest common denominator of safeguards for would-be immigrants and the highest common denominator of control. There is little doubt that some nationals who do not need visas will be required to hold them in future.

The United Kingdom's present system of immigration control is based primarily on checks at the frontier. We are set on a collision course with Brussels over the continuation of those frontier controls on passengers arriving after 1 January 1993 from other EC states. The Government's interpretation of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act --that our present system of control can continue--is contested by the Commission. Our system relies on those frontier controls. They are especially appropriate on an island and are especially necessary because of the threat of terrorism. They bring other benefits to the police in the fight against crime. Other member states cannot so easily control their frontiers.

If the Commission's view prevails, the frontiers of other member states will become our frontiers and their problems will also become ours. The British people will regard such a development as extraordinary, as they see the United Kingdom for what it is--a series of islands, which ought to exploit that natural advantage with our existing airport and sea port controls. I have sometimes heard the comparison with the United States of America. The European Community cannot be compared with the USA. The way in which people are treated when they arrive in Hawaii, one of the 50 states, is not a suitable comparison with the way in which people are treated when arriving at Heathrow or Dover.

If we relax internal frontier controls, there will be a demand for compensatory measures. The Government have not formed any view on the nature and extent of those measures. Among such measures which will need discussion are identity cards and checks on people's immigration status by employers and the agencies paying them state benefits. I am glad that the Association of Chief Police Officers, in giving evidence to the Committee, has confirmed that it is in favour of identity cards. I share its view for the

Next Section

Home Page