| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that we believe that fraudulent asylum seekers must quickly be weeded out, and that the whole process must be speeded up--but that it must work in a way that is fair and just to any genuine applicant? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the issue has so far proved controversial because of widely shared concern, as acknowledged by the Prime Minister last week, that the proposals may damage race relations and may not work effectively?
If the Secretary of State now accepts that the issue should be taken out of party politics, surely it should be the subject of cool examination by a Special Standing Committee of the House, with the intention of removing controversy? Is not the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to publish today two lengthy and complicated documents about just part of his proposals further evidence of the need for such examination?
Is the Secretary of State aware that he was misinformed when he said on radio this morning that the Special Standing Committee procedure was never designed for such measures? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, to support his claim, bizarrely quoted a 1993 White Paper, which turns out to be one on Scotland and the Union. The scrutiny of Bills is the responsibility not of the Government but of the House.
Does not the Secretary of State recall that, in 1986, the House accepted a recommendation of the Procedure Committee that the Special Standing Committee process should permanently be incorporated into the Standing Orders of the House? The Procedure Committee stated that a "wider range of Bills" should be examined by such
a process. The House defeated an attempt by the Government to control the circumstances in which that procedure could be used.
Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that careful scrutiny is one of the best guarantors of good legislation? Its absence explains the failure of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The then Home Secretary told the House that his 1992 Bill, which became the 1993 Act, would protect against fraud, provide a quicker system to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, and achieve a way of reaching prompt and fair decisions.
Is the Secretary of State aware that his predecessor set an explicit time limit of three months from initial application to the disposal of the appeal, in the full expectation that the total number of applications would rise in future? Instead of applications and appeals being dealt with in three months, they are now taking an average of 19 months. How much have efforts by the Home Office to short-cut delays by predetermining applications from allegedly safe countries complicated procedures still further, and extended delays?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that Nigeria has not been, and will not be, on any so-called "white list". How can he explain the fact that, last year, of 1,495 applications for asylum from Nigeria, only one was accepted? How can that happen, when the whole world knows of the appalling brutality of the Nigerian regime--not least through the judicial murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogonis?
The Secretary of State also claimed on radio this morning that his Bill has "absolutely nothing" to do with race. How does he square that statement with the opposite view of many organisations that normally support the Government? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to the comments of the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce and Institute of Directors, which stated that it was
What has the Home Secretary told the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who as recently as September said of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's plans for employer checks that they could result in "racist discrimination"? If those concerns are unfounded, what on earth has the Secretary of State to fear from their examination by a Special Standing Committee?
Should not a Special Standing Committee also be able to examine the Secretary of State's proposals in respect of national insurance numbers--which he has mentioned today--as the Lord Chancellor, in a letter to the Secretary of State in September, described these proposals as having
"unlikely viability"?
If the Secretary of State wishes to reassure the public that the proposals have nothing to do with race, is it not time for him to do what so far the Prime Minister has refused to do--to repudiate that chilling and incriminating statement from Mr. Andrew Lansley, the former head of the Conservative research department and now a Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire, who said in September that immigration is an issue
It is the delay in dealing with applications, appeals and removals that is the cause of asylum problems, and of the mounting benefit bill. Those delays have to be tackled; but, given the failure of the 1993 Act, the most serious questions must be raised about whether these proposals will work any more effectively or fairly. If the Secretary of State shares our aim, he will be helped, not hindered, by an examination of the proposals by a Special Standing Committee. If he does not, will he tell the House why?
On the other hand, if the Secretary of State has changed his mind and will now accept this proposal, let me give him an assurance and a guarantee here and now that the House will have our full co-operation in making the process work.
Mr. Howard:
If the opening suggestions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)--that the Opposition were determined to deal with bogus asylum seekers--had any credibility at all, he would have expressed his support for these measures. The truth of the matter is that, although I listened very carefully to every word that the hon. Gentleman said, we still do not know what the attitude of the Opposition is to these measures.
The hon. Gentleman has travelled a considerable way in his attitude to these measures. At his party conference, he said:
A Special Standing Committee is a procedure suitable for non-controversial, technical Bills. We have had six immigration Bills since that procedure was introduced, and it has been used for none of them. There is no more reason why that procedure should be used for this Bill than for any other controversial measure. The Bill will receive full and cool scrutiny in Standing Committee in the normal way, and the Government will, of course, listen to the proposals that are made in that Committee.
The 1993 Act has made a contribution to solving the problem, but we did not anticipate at the time that that measure was enacted that the increase in the number of applications would be on such a scale--at a time, I repeat, when the number of applications for the rest of Europe is falling.
It is true that the time limits that were set are not being kept. They are not being kept for the reason that I cited in my opening statement. It was found by the independent consultants who looked at the matter that the procedures are being abused, exploited and manipulated, so that the time limits cannot be adhered to.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of applications from Nigeria that are accepted. Those decisions are not made by Ministers. In the first instance, they are made by immigration officials, and they are then subject to appeal to adjudicators. Every applicant has to establish a well founded fear of persecution. It is on that basis that applications have not been accepted.
I dealt with racism in my opening statement. There is no question of racism in my proposals. I have never discussed the matter with Mr. Lansley. The proposals that I have put forward are a measured response to a serious problem. It is on that basis that I commend them to the House.
Mr. Douglas Hurd (Witney):
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend said that he has no intention of watering down in any way the United Kingdom's compliance with its international obligations under the 1951 convention. He said also that we are following other notable liberal countries with the designated list idea. Am I right in saying that, if an individual from a country on the designated list can, against expectation, establish that he or she has a well founded fear of persecution, he or she could be admitted?
It seems that my right hon. and learned Friend has listened carefully to points of view put to him in the past and has shown in the procedure which he has described a willingness to listen in future on particular issues which he outlined.
We have heard the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. The statement appeared to me to be one that should have been made on Second Reading. I shall not allow many questions, because we shall have a debate on the issue tomorrow. We shall also have a Second Reading debate on the Bill. I want direct questions to the Home Secretary, so that we might get on with our business.
"very uneasy about the effect of his proposals . . . upon community relations"
and that they could lead to businesses
"being branded as racist by the popular press"?
"which has more potential to hurt"?
If that was not an invitation to play the race card, what is?
"We shall oppose the promised Bill on Asylum and Immigration".
On 26 October, he said that Labour would have "no truck" with these proposals. He has since been forced to backtrack, publicly humiliated by the leader of his party. Last week, the hon. Gentleman said of the Bill:
"we will finally make our decisions on how we are going to vote when we see its terms".
Now they know the terms--when will we hear what they think about these proposals?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |