| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's time is up.
6.41 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I welcome one aspect of the Bill-- it is a proper United Kingdom Bill covering all parts of the kingdom. Obviously, it has been possible for the parliamentary draftsmen to deal with the fact that the Bill amends parts of existing Northern Ireland legislation, especially housing provisions. In other contexts, when we asked the Government to apply legislation to Northern Ireland, they said that they could not do so because it would interfere with the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book. The Home Office has been able to do so with this Bill without worrying about that integrity and I commend that action to other Government Departments. There is no reason why we cannot legislate on that basis all the time.
I welcome the fact that the United Nations convention on refugees is being given primacy in the Bill. That is important and I hope that that policy will continue. It is acknowledged that there is a problem with asylum seeking. It might not be as bad as was predicted last year, but it exists. There are a number of reasons for that. Reference was made to the fact that some economic migration is now
Column 69
being disguised as asylum seeking. That aspect of the problem may affect us even more in Europe during the next few years.I note the comments about migration to Germany. More effort should be made by the European Community to improve the economic conditions of the former socialist states of eastern Europe. The EC's record is poor. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the danger to the stability of Germany from that migration. I am not convinced that there is such a danger, but if there is it arises because of the unrealistic liberality of German legislation. Many countries are in an unfortunate economic condition and in many other countries there is not the respect for democracy and human rights that we would wish. However, the solution is not for all the citizens of the world to come to live in western Europe or the United Kingdom.
Some hon. Members appear to think it unreasonable to focus efforts on improving the economic conditions or increasing the respect for human rights and democracy in other countries. However, that must be the solution, rather than to widen or to try to sustain unrealistically wide rights of entry on the ground of asylum. I note the comments about the way in which decisions are taken by the Trevi group. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) commented on the way in which secret decisions are taken and on the fact that there is not proper accountability. I wish that he had the same attitude to the secret meetings that take decisions on policies that affect Northern Ireland. A secret conference has existed for seven years without any accountability to the House ; indeed, it is ignored by the House. That secret conference is supported by the right hon. Gentleman. I should like some consistency of approach from him.
The Secretary of State said that the key matter was to ensure that the procedures were quick and fair, and those must be the criteria. First, we must acknowledge that there is a need for speed. I recognise that the Bill makes an attempt to tackle that. However, I am worried about fairness. That cannot be achieved by removing rights of appeal or by creating special procedures that will apply solely to asylum matters. There is little confidence in the way in which immigration officials operate, so the right of appeal is important. I support what has been said about visitors and students. A right of appeal is a check on the actions of officials. It is not sufficient to rely on the belief that officials will always be right ; they are not.
Northern Ireland does not have a significant numbers problem with people seeking entry, but problems do arise from time to time. We are aware of the excessive delays in the system and the uncertainty about the way in which it operates. The relatives of those affected have little opportunity to influence the system and that causes a great deal of unnecessary anguish. It may be necessary to have a truncated procedure if we are to speed up the system, but why should that be applied solely to asylum seekers? Surely there is an argument for a unified procedure for all immigrants. If it does not work effectively or if it is taking too long, the solution is to make it more effective and more efficient and to put the necessary resources into it to achieve that.
We have some reservations about the procedure, not in the Bill, but in the rules. I listened with interest to the debate between the Secretary of State and the hon.
Column 70
Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), especially on the two-day appeal. It appeared to boil down to the fact that the Secretary of State spoke as though he would ensure that a personal service notice was made only in cases that he believed to be manifestly groundless. If that is his approach, why not include it in the rules? Why expect us to approve the Bill purely on the basis of his intentions? The rules should be clarified in that respect.I shall refer only briefly to the provisions on fingerprinting and housing. We do not have any problems with the fingerprinting requirement as it could be necessary in some circumstances to identify people. Although fingerprinting might be undignified, it is not a serious infringement of human rights. One justification put forward for fingerprinting is that without it people might disappear into the cities and be untraceable. The solution to that problem would be what we have recommended in other contexts--identity cards for all the population. We could then identity those who do not have proper documents.
On the housing issue, I note that, on Second Reading of the previous Bill last year, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said : "once an asylum seeker is allowed to enter the country, he or she should be treated like any other resident--no better, no worse."--[ Official Report, 13 November 1991 ; Vol. 198,
c. 1104.]
That view should be adopted, but with changes. Once an asylum seeker is recognised as having a right to be in this country, he should be treated the same as other people. That would be fair. The Bill is trying to delay people's rights under housing and homelessness legislation until a right to be in the country is acknowledged. Until a person has that right to be in the country, he does not have the right to take advantage of legislation. That is not unfair.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke of the desirability of dispersal in connection with the provision of temporary accommodation. When the boat people came to the United Kingdom, we in Craigavon were happy to accommodate some of them ; in similar circumstances, we should be happy to act similarly. A problem exits, and the Bill attempts to tackle it. There are some imperfections in the way in which it does so, but I am glad that the Government have made some concessions since the presentation of the original Bill. I hope that they will be flexible when dealing with the detail in Committee. We intend, however, to support the Bill and the principle behind it.
6.50 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : The Bill deals with a problem that the House can no longer avoid. Migration is a rapidly growing problem throughout Europe. We have seen a vast influx into Germany of east Europeans and other immigrants, which has brought a phoenix-like rise of fascism in Germany.
Our television screens have shown us scenes of violence--such as the burning of hostels by mobs--that are reminiscent of the activities of the "brown shirts" in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. It will have brought a chill to the heart of any human being to see otherwise decent German folk voicing racial hatred, and justifying--or even supporting--the violence. In France, an influx from Algeria and black Africa has had similar results. It is
Column 71
now respectable in French political circles to use hateful racist language. We are seeing the same in Belgium--the rise of fascism and mob unrest.A vast horde of aspirant economic migrants is creating pressures in Europe, leading to political responses that are extremely distasteful to democrats and, I am sure, to all hon. Members. We should face up to the fact that the United Kingdom is not immune to such pressures : indeed, we are even more vulnerable to them. We have good race relations, and, by and large, the days of National Front marches are gone ; but that improvement is based on public trust in our tight immigration controls. If those controls are doubted, we shall risk a resurgence of the National Front and other such nasty activists. I speak with particular feeling, because Gravesend and Northfleet--which I have the honour to represent--contain 7,000 Sikh residents. They live in the local community in peace, a condition of which I am extremely proud. They can, for instance, hold their religious processions to celebrate their Baisakhi festival without disturbance. Only last week I was able to support the bid of a Sikh gentleman, Mr. Amrik Singh Jandoo, to become a Conservative Gravesham borough councillor. He obtained public support across the community ; moreover, he achieved a 1 per cent. swing towards the
Conservatives--at a time like this!
This country has a proud record in regard to the granting of asylum. We have given asylum to political refugees for many centuries : we can cast our minds back to the Huguenots, the Jews from eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century, continental Europeans during the last war and many others. The Bill is compatible with that tradition, and also with the 1951 United Nations refugee convention. My Sikh constituents are particularly aware of the need for real asylum in this country. The large Gravesend and Northfleet community of Sikhs originates from the Punjab in India. I need not detain the House with a contemporary history of that sad state ; grievances against the federal Government of the republic of India go back to the time of independence, when many Sikhs felt that Nehru and his Congress party had reneged on solemn undertakings. Since then, relations between the Sikhs of Punjab and the federal Government have been poor : there has been an escalating round of rebellion and repression. The conflict, highlighted by the sacking of the golden temple at Amritsar-- which has again been occupied by Indian forces during the past month--has thrown up refugees fleeing in fear of their lives. Nevertheless, they are a statistically small number. Despite the current concerns, this is a wonderful and prosperous country in which to bring up one's family. Millions of people in less-well-off parts of the world would migrate to it on precisely those economic grounds. Given the immense pressure imposed by economic migrants, it is natural that there has been a search for the loopholes and weak points in our immigration law, and asylum application procedures have been a major weak point. Under the guidance of paid Mr. Fixits, such applicants have developed abuse of the system on a grand scale.
During our debate in the previous Session we were told that, only four years ago, 5,000 applications a year had been made, of which only 25 per cent. had proved genuine.
Column 72
Since then, the rate of application has escalated vastly and clogged up the system, causing two-year delays. A total of 64,000 applications is now outstanding. Why is that? Have human rights around the world deteriorated so sharply now that so many dictatorships have tumbled? The answer must be no : it is just that thousands of people are attempting to charge through a loophole in our immigration controls.Let us take the cases that I frequently encounter in Gravesend. People come to Britain to visit relatives, or as tourists or students, on six-month visas. At the end of that period they suddenly produce letters from home telling them that their return would imperil their lives because of their political views. They apply for political asylum ; that gives them some two years. In most cases the application is turned down, because they are identified as economic migrants. By that time, however, they may well have married and had British-born children ; 25 per cent. of them have been identified as political refugees, another 60 per cent. have been granted exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The remaining 15 per cent. of applicants then appeal--and months, if not years, ensue. At the end of that period, they either succeed or are granted exceptional leave to remain. The unsuccessful few frequently then embark on an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Such examples make it clear that, if skilfully handled, applications for political asylum are a one-way bet on getting through our immigration laws. Ministers are quite right to act on grounds of equity--by which I mean equal treatment not only for British people but for my Sikh constituents. We should not overlook what happens to applicants while they are waiting. Some occupy council housing at the expense of local people in housing need ; many take low-paid jobs in the local labour market, forcing down wages at the expense of Sikh residents.
Not only do my Sikh constituents resent such people ; their treatment dents the Sikhs' belief in British justice and fair play. They have accepted the need for tight immigration rules, and they resent what is effectively queue -jumping. I nevertheless ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State to look again at the provision to end the right of appeal on refusals of visitors' and students' visas.
The current problem is exacerbated by the recent tragic events in Bosnia. There is a danger that the displacement of people from that area will spread ever more widely. They are increasingly coming to Britain, frequently on the initiative of idealistic but naive people. Only recently, in my own county of Kent, 26 Bosnians--members of six families--were brought in through Dover by a Surrey clergyman. He effectively dumped them, without notice, on the Dover authorities. His action put immediate stress on health, education, social services and voluntary agencies in the town. Eventually the Bosnians were moved to Surrey.
The irony is that Dover has been assisting its twin town, Split in Croatia, and has helped the very Bosnian refugees who were brought to Dover. It is supporting people close to their original homes. It is no service to them to be dumped far from home in a foreign country. Surely it is better to serve them locally by providing aid and supplies--ironically, protected by British forces who are serving with the United Nations force based in that country.
The Bill will speed up procedures, help real political asylum seekers, and limit the scope for Mr. Fixit to batten
Column 73
expensively on to human misery. It will restore justice and equity ; it will close a vast loophole. I hope that on this occasion the Bill will reach the statute book.6.59 pm
Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Coventry, North-East) : My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Home Secretary agreed that the differences between us are about whether these rules are fair. Since then, I have listened to a debate that has completely distorted the interpretation of that word. Blame has been heaped on asylum seekers by Conservative Members for the length of housing lists, unemployment and the lack of social services in inner-city areas. We have to remember that we are talking about asylum seekers, not about a return to full-blown primary immigration. We are talking about applying fair treatment to asylum seekers who wish to enter this country.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) gave us an interpretation of "fairness." He said that United Kingdom citizens are entitled to it but that people who seek asylum here are not entitled to fair treatment under the United Kingdom's legal system. If that is Conservative Members' interpretation of "fairness", one can understand clearly what the differences are between us. My knowledge of this issue arises out of the casework with which I have dealt since I became a Member of Parliament last April. Many of the points have already been made in the debate, but one of the most important was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. He spoke of how these rules will be interpreted and applied. I know from first-hand experience how people are dealt with and the problems that they encounter. I am currently dealing with an asylum case. This legislation would have had a direct effect on it. A young man in Winson Green prison is awaiting the outcome of an asylum appeal. If the two -day rule had applied to him, he would have been long gone from this country.
In these cases, a distant relative gets in touch with a Member of Parliament. He assesses the case and then contacts a community leader, who manages to persuade a lawyer to make representations on that person's behalf. It is not the case, as has been said by Conservative Members, that all that is paid for by the British taxpayer. All of that has to be done if people are to be provided with proper representation. It cannot be done in two days. The concession that has been made since this legislation last came before the House is a concession in name only. It is not real when it comes to the practicalities. The two-day rule means that people will, effectively, have no right to an appeal.
Reference has been made to the European convention on human rights being enshrined in the Bill. The individual in the case with which I am dealing has been told that, because he is a member of a particular group, he cannot be in danger in the country from which he came. He comes from the Punjab. He is a Hindu. He says that he has been repeatedly harassed by the police. Having interviewed him, I believe what he says. The immigration service, however, says that that cannot be right--as he is a Hindu, how can he have been harassed by the police? To say that a member of a religious group cannot really be in danger and cannot, therefore, be entitled to asylum goes specifically against
Column 74
the terms of the convention, yet that argument is being used even before the passage of the Bill. If this legislation is passed, it will be enshrined in legislation that members of particular groups will not be dealt with properly.I shall now deal with the refusal to give any right of appeal to visitors. I intend to refer again to cases that I have encountered. My blood boils when I read the details of interviews that relatives of my constituents have been put through by employees of Her Majesty's Government when they go to the high commission in Delhi, Bombay and elsewhere. Under the Bill, the Government intend to remove any right of appeal in those cases.
A young couple came to see me. The husband's mother applied to come to this country to assist her daughter-in-law while she had her second child. She was asked why on earth she did not come here when her daughter-in-law had her first child. She said that it was because of ill-health when the first child was born four years ago. She was then asked why she had to come and why there was no one in this country who could help her daughter-in-law. She said that the reason for coming was that it was her duty, that it was tradition. The interviewing officer then asked her, "Why on earth didn't you invoke tradition when you allowed your son to go to live in the United Kingdom?" Having in some cases travelled hundreds of miles, from the Punjab to the capital, people are treated like that when all they seek to do is to come here--half-way around the world--to see their grandchildren and perhaps, as in this case, assist a daughter-in-law when she has her second child. It is traditional for that to happen in those parts of the world that do not enjoy the medical care that we enjoy here.
If we remove the right of appeal, those attitudes will be reinforced. They are already bad. Something ought to be done. I do not believe that officials behave in that way without it being sanctioned from above. Ordinary people in the immigration service, both here and abroad, do not treat people like that without it having been clearly intimated to them that it is okay to do so and that it is required. They have been given clearance from their bosses. That clearance extends right up to the Government. If we take away the right of appeal, the horror stories will grow tenfold.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) blamed asylum seekers for the housing waiting list. Other Conservative Members blamed asylum seekers for unemployment. I do not know when a council house was last built in that borough or how many council houses have been built in that borough in recent years. The lack of council housing is a massive problem, compared with the size of this problem. It is disgraceful to put the blame for the lack of council housing on to asylum seekers.
We are in the process of building fortress Europe. A few years ago we criticised communist regimes for erecting an iron curtain. It appears that we are now determined to create one of our own and to turn our backs on ordinary human beings, in desperate circumstances. 7.9 pm
Ms Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : There are a number of seamen's hostels in my constituency and many of their residents come from Somalia. They are British citizens and many of them served Britain in the Burma campaign. They spent their lives as seamen and their families, homes and farms were in Somalia, where they
Column 75
intended to return when they retired. They never sought a council flat or housing here ; they stayed in their cubicles in the seamen's hostel, where they remain to this day.In the past two years, many of them have come to see me to try to bring their families here. It was never their intention to do so, but their families are dying and have been shot, bombed and slaughtered. Many of those who applied for entry have disappeared and are presumed dead. Others have come here with limbs missing, which could have been avoided if the procedures had moved more quickly.
I approach the Bill with my Somali constituents very much in mind because I have witnessed their distress, suffering and concern for their relatives. Some of the Somalis have been granted refugee status, whereas others have been granted exceptional leave to remain. The Geneva convention defines refugee status quite narrowly. It excludes ordinary people who are simply caught up between warring factions and are the victims of air and land attacks, such as those in the horn of Africa, where medical facilities are almost non-existent. It also excludes the victims of breakdowns in public and economic order, which in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia have been aggravated by many years of drought.
Britain, Germany and the Netherlands have had a second category of exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. Those who were allowed here on that basis were disadvantaged compared with those who were accepted as refugees because they could not apply for family reunion until they had been here four years. In addition, they had to wait seven years before applying for settlement, compared with four years for those who had refugee status. At least their lives were saved and they were able to start a new life here.
When the Bill was being reconsidered, a number of organisations approached the Secretary of State to give exceptional leave to remain some statutory recognition. He did not respond to that. I believe that exceptional leave should be given statutory recognition but, failing that, the Minister should at least give a categoric assurance in Committee that exceptional leave to remain will continue as heretofore, because it is important that it should. I should not like to see Britain abolish that right when other European countries which have taken more refugees than us continue to have a more humanitarian approach.
On the question of housing homeless asylum seekers, clauses 4 and 5 cause considerable concern. Clause 4(1)(b) relieves local authorities of their obligation to provide housing to people in priority need if the asylum seeker has
"any accommodation, however temporary, which it would be reasonable for him to occupy"
with those living with him. It has been pointed out that that could mean sleeping on a church floor or, as so often happens in my constituency, on the floor of a house of a distant relative. A homeless asylum seeker would have to spend a period on the streets before being accepted as someone whom the local authority must rehouse. The present conditions for homeless people are humiliating. Clause 4 will place an additional burden on a small group of people who arrive here traumatised and who have gone through hell only to be put through further hoops, which is quite unacceptable.
The issue of confidentiality arises under the housing provisions. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 imposes a duty on
Column 76
the local housing authority to satisfy itself that an applicant is truly an asylum seeker, but it does not impose a concurrent duty of confidentiality. Civil servants in the asylum section will have to assist local authorities, which may breach their excellent practice of confidentiality. Asylum staff at Lunar house and Quest house do not allow records to be given to, and have foiled devious attempts by, foreign embassies seeking to gain details on asylum seekers to persecute them or their families abroad. They maintain strict confidentiality, which would be breached by this provision. That is another serious concern.I should like to deal with the loss of appeal rights under clauses 9 and 10. Hon. Members have said that if officials at overseas posts know that an applicant has no right of appeal, it will make their attitudes harsher. In 1985, the Commission for Racial Equality, investigating the sub-continent, found in overseas posts widespread racism and contemptuous attitudes to applicants.
Clauses 9 and 10 will deprive unsuccessful applicants of the right of appeal. If the clauses are passed, a further independent inquiry must investigate whether there has been any improvement or fundamental change in those attitudes at overseas posts. If the right of appeal is to be removed, there must be a provision for representations to be made to officials in this country and by Members of Parliament to Ministers. At present, representations against a refusal at an overseas post can be made only to local officials, which obviously leads to widespread unfairness. Clause 9 deals with applications by visitors, of which almost all Labour Members have had experience through their constituents. Black and Asian people make up 4.5 per cent. of the population. They are mostly younger people and they have close ties with their relations who wish to visit them. The immigration and nationality department report for 1990-91, which covered India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria, showed that 272,870 applications for visitors visas were received, of which 42,220 were initially refused and 12,080 were subsequently granted on appeal. That meant that 28 per cent. of refusals were wrongly decided and later overturned. That 28 per cent. will now have no opportunity of having their case reconsidered. I have found from my constituents' cases that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to many of the refusals. There is no logic to who is allowed to enter.
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) : Does my hon. Friend agree that immigration officers deal with cases so badly that perhaps we should have an immigration complaints authority, like the Police Complaints Authority, whereby people could take up complaints against immigration officers? There is no procedure by which Members of Parliament and others can take up such matters with the Home Office.
Ms. Gordon : I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has made a good suggestion. There is no quality control. Whether one gets one's permit to come here for a holiday seems to depend on what the official had for breakfast. Grandmothers and parents are humiliated and heartbroken when the grandparents want to come to see a new grandchild and are refused admittance or when they want to travel for similar reasons that would apply to
Column 77
us--to visit relatives, to go to family occasions, and so on. They must go through unpleasant procedures. A constituent--Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. The 10-minute limit is a cruel one.
Ms. Gordon : May I have half a minute to wind up?
Madam Deputy Speaker : No. I am so sorry.
7.19 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : The hon. Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) have dealt with specific immigration issues with which, I am sure, the whole House has a great deal of sympathy. Immigration officials should always be courteous and should never display prejudice in these matters. I join those hon. Members in getting extremely angry when officials overstep the law and the intentions of the House in administering immigration rules.
By contrast with some hon. Members, I very much welcome the Bill because it will enhance the ability of true asylum seekers to have their cases dealt with quickly and courteously. Their cases can be decided so that they can then go on to plan their lives.
The present arrangements are highly unsatisfactory. Until recently, asylum seekers had to wait upwards of five years before their cases were decided. It is cruel to keep people in total ignorance of their future for that period. Many of them are accompanied by their children who do not know when the cases will be decided, and how and where they will live in the future. The Bill, which is designed to cut the time to consider asylum cases, is welcome and necessary, and I hope that it gets on to the statute book quickly.
I will put the matter in its historical context and in the context of the present world. Traditionally, asylum seekers have been welcomed in this country because they were fleeing from a tyrannical regime in their own countries where they could confidently expect to be either badly injured or murdered. That was the sense in which we and many other countries signed the United Nations convention, and I believe that my hon. Friends are trying to implement its provisions. It is obvious from the research that has been carried out that the provisions have been cruelly exploited by ruthless people who are determined to migrate to this country regardless of the circumstances. That has given rise to the long waiting lists which true political asylum seekers have to face. More than 50 per cent. of those interviewed as asylum seekers have been found to be already resident in this country. They have come into the country on visitors' visas. Hence the need to tighten in clauses 9 and 10 the visitors' visas regime. It is most unfortunate that we have to do that. Like the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, I should like people to be able to visit this country and their relatives as easily as possible. However, the visitors' visas regime has been cruelly exploited and the result has been that people who subsequently decide--
Mr. Vaz : Where is the evidence?
Mr. Wells : The evidence, if the hon. Gentleman would like to see it, was given by Ministers when the previous Asylum Bill was in Committee. There is a mass of evidence
Column 78
to that effect. It cannot be denied that what I have said is the case. We must face the facts and we must make provision to ensure that we deal with asylum seekers fairly.More than 50 per cent. of those seeking asylum are already resident in this country. Anybody who seeks asylum, in the traditional meaning of the word, if he is resident in this country is by definition not an asylum seeker. Anybody who is resident in this country should be debarred from seeking asylum here. Obviously, there are some exceptional circumstances in which we should consider those already resident in this country for asylum, but such circumstances would be highly exceptional and should be specified in legislation. All that refugees seeking asylum have to do is to know the word "asylum". All that those arriving at Stansted and coming into Bishop's Stortford and the neighbouring Uttlesford district council have to do--they have been doing it in larger and larger numbers over the past six months-- is to say that they are seeking asylum under the present rules. They will not only be welcomed into this country, but they will be given shelter and priority on the housing list. Indeed, they will be given housing benefit. That is causing immense resentment in my constituency and in Uttlesford district council. The House should think again if it thinks that the phenomenon occurs only in this country. The recent attacks on immigrants' hostels in Germany have their roots in uncontrolled immigration and asylum seeking by those from eastern Europe. Such over-generosity undermines good race relations and stability, not only in this country, but in Germany and elsewhere. For that reason, the reasons for asylum seeking should be narrow and should apply to those genuinely seeking political asylum from those who would kill or molest them and their families in the countries from which they come.
It is right that we should take away from those seeking asylum the right to come to this country via a third country. If one is a true political refugee, one should seek asylum only in the country next to the one from which one is fleeing. That would demonstrate the necessity of one's cause and the need for asylum. The idea that people can fly from Sri Lanka, as Tamils did the other day, to Malaysia, to India, to Germany and then to this country to seek political asylum is nonsense and I am glad that the Bill will tighten that aspect of asylum seeking.
I draw the House's attention to the fact that the right for certain categories to appeal when visitors' visas are refused is narrowly defined. I believe that that is right because it will speed up the system and prevent the clogging of the processing of applications for asylum and for immigration.
The Bill will speed up, streamline and make more humane our present methods of processing asylum seekers, and I very much welcome and support it.
7.27 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall) : I oppose the Bill and I will vote against it tonight because it is a travesty of natural justice, and it is outrageously against human decency and human rights.
I represent a constituency that deals with many cases of immigration and nationality matters. I dealt with such cases as the head of one of the biggest grass-roots, democratic organisations in the country.
The Home Secretary said earlier :
"We live in a multiracial and multicultural society."
Column 79
He also said that he believed in "civilised values". He knows that during the election many Ministers and senior Tory party officers visited my constituency. They talked to the Asian and Afro- Caribbean communities because they wanted their votes. They promised that they would do everything possible for them. They said, "We believe in the same values of family life that you believe in. You are hard working and you believe in the unity of the family."It is ironic that the Government have a dismal record on immigration. That is clear from decisions taken by this and the previous Government. In 1985, visa requirements were imposed on Sri Lankans. In 1986, similar restrictions were imposed on nationals of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria. Citizens of Turkey and Haiti were added to the list in 1989. In 1990, the rules were harmonised to include citizens of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. In April 1991, Ugandans were required to obtain visas to come to this country. The despicable primary purpose rule is yet more evidence of the Government's present immigration policy.
My constituency comprises nearly 40 per cent. ethnic minority communities. I was told recently that nearly 4,000 Somalis live in my constituency. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) claim that the refugees who have come to Ealing should be dispersed to other areas in the country. He does not realise that the 4,000 Somalis live in my constituency, not in his constituency or in that of the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
The hon. Member for Ealing, North knows that the Tories control the town hall. They are completely unsympathetic to the refugees of ethnic minority communities. They propose a £14 million cut which will hit the ordinary people very hard. My area in particular has been hit very hard by the proposals. The Tories will pursue such policies until the elections in 1994 when we can get rid of the Tory administration in the town hall.
I welcome the fact that refugees and asylum seekers will have a right of appeal. However, I am not happy about the time limit. Many people who have visited my constituency have already made applications. They are finding it very difficult to find legal advice available in such a short period. I believe that that right will be denied to them and that they will be vulnerable to the Government's proposals.
I am not happy about fingerprinting. It has been suggested that children might be fingerprinted. If that happened, it would contravene the United Nations convention. It would be an injustice and against all human values.
I am aware of people in my constituency who have made applications to enter as visitors to visit relatives for very good reasons. For example, old men and women want to participate in weddings or some other family celebration. Asian families are close knit. The people still believe in their own culture and they want to have something to do with each other. They like to get together. However, when they make applications in Delhi to do that they encounter many difficulties and their applications are rejected ; I could cite many cases to prove that.
The proposal to remove the right of appeal is despicable. The people who visit my constituency bring
Column 80
money into the country. They buy things to take back to India and so spend money here. Also, visitors come for social, cultural and traditional reasons. They do not come to stay permanently. Of course, I am aware that some people contravene the conditions of their stay, but that does not mean that we must punish the decent and honest citizens.People who were refused an application in Delhi, Pakistan or elsewhere have the right to appeal. My organisation has been dealing with appeals cases and it has represented people in the adjudicators' courts. Nearly 1,700 appeals were accepted and those people had the right to come to this country. That facility was available under immigration rules but will be denied under the Bill. That is against human decency and human justice. People will be punished for nothing.
The entry clearance officers over there, who I have been told are bloody minded, already ask totally unreasonable questions. They ask applicants how many cows they have in the village or how many cows the family has. They want to know the colour of the bricks or the direction that the main door of the house faces. Those are unreasonable questions. In effect, the entry clearance officers have already decided that they will reject such applications. It is clear from the records of appeal cases that such interviews are conducted by entry clearance officers in foreign countries.
The Home Secretary said that there was a backlog of 23,000 applications. If that backlog is the reason for the removal of such a fundamental right, that is illogical. The Bill places Conservative Members in a difficult position. The two Conservative Members who represent constituencies in Ealing are present in the Chamber. They are aware of the problems that people face, but they are not as sensitive to the matter as I am--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
7.38 pm
Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : May I first declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Africa committee of the British Refugee Council and have held that post for a considerable number of years. Therefore, I have dealt intermittently and consistently with asylum cases. Although I understand why we have an Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and I spoke in the debates on the earlier Asylum Bill, I am sorry that we have confused the two issues of asylum and immigration, particularly in the long title. Many of the fears expressed across Europe and elsewhere in the world are related to immigration and not asylum.
From an analysis of the figures in this country, the people who seek asylum here come from countries where there are wars and real difficulties, but people seek to emigrate for different reasons. Immigration is a separate issue and should be handled differently from asylum. I am sorry that the two are confused. I hope that all hon. Members will try as far as they can to ensure that the two are not related in the public mind.
From my long experience of dealing with asylum seekers from Africa, I know that many people who come here have been detected by our embassies and high commissions abroad. Consulates often earmark and identify people who are genuinely politically at risk--the
Column 81
serious cases--and provide documents to enable them to come here, especially when there have been the sort of changes of Government that have taken place in Africa.People who come here by other means from Ethiopia or Uganda or people who are here when there has been a change of Government abroad are, by and large, highly qualified and they seek employment. One aspect of asylum seekers which is often misunderstood is that they do not seek to stay here. They want to be here temporarily until whatever has happened in their country changes--until the war finishes or a more acceptable regime comes to power--and then they go back. I know of many happy occasions when Ugandan refugees--who have been here more than once as that sad country has gone through different regimes--have returned home.
I know of such a case at the moment. An Ethiopian, whom I was able to help in the short term because of changes in his country, has now been satisfied by his family and the Ethiopian ambassador that--in spite of the steps which he has taken to apply for asylum--it is safe for him to return to Ethiopia. He is going back willingly because that is his country and that is where he can make his contribution. We all recognise that some asylum cases are manifestly unfounded and that they need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently. During the passage of the Asylum Bill last year, Conservative Members applied pressure on the issue of secondary appeals and I am grateful that that has been worked out in this Bill.
I have listened carefully to Opposition Members' speeches. We must take care that we do not narrow asylum to the definition in the 1951 convention. The world has changed a great deal since then. My colleagues in the Home Office have exercised the right of exceptional leave to remain on more than one occasion. It requires the wisdom of Solomon. We all know of cases which could not be narrowly defined as asylum cases under the 1951 convention but which, in all humanity, required help and assistance.
I hope that we are not shutting out exceptional leave to remain, which is difficult to define. I have often wondered whether we should redefine refugees and asylum seekers, but I recognise that that would be incredibly difficult to do internationally. We must retain in our system the humanity to deal with cases when exceptional leave to remain for a short time could be helpful.
When we talk about numbers, I feel concerned. I am humbled at the number of refugees taken in by poor countries such as Malawi and Kenya. At one stage, southern Sudan took in refugees from Uganda. If we translated those numbers to our situation, it would mean taking in hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of refugees. It is incumbent upon us to be helpful to asylum seekers and those in need of exceptional leave to remain and to ensure that we give the maximum possible assistance to countries with far fewer resources than ours--countries which have to deal with far greater refugee problems. We should be able to deal with fingerprinting sensibly. I see no reason why people should be fingerprinted because they are seeking asylum, unless they have destroyed their documents. If they have done so, for whatever reason, they need some form of identification. That problem could be dealt with by ruling that people would not be fingerprinted as a matter of course but only if they had no proper identification.
| Next Section
| Home Page |