| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hattersley: She says that she will. That is something to look forward to. I hope that she will tell us whether the scenario that I have described is a figment of my imagination, of the imagination of the trade unions, of the employers' federations, of the Confederation of British Industry and of the chambers of commerce. My fear is that she knows it to be true and does not care, because the object of the Bill is not to improve race relations or to prevent bogus asylum seekers entering the country but to put the Labour party on the spot. Thank heavens we are not on the spot, because we are doing what is right and we are resisting the Bill.
5.30 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): The speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did not make it clear whether he agrees that there is a problem with bogus asylum seekers in this country. He never said so. Nor was it clear from his speech whether the hon. Gentleman has proposals to deal with the problem--if there is one-- because he never said so. I am not sure whether he wants everyone who comes from any country which has internal trouble to be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom or not. He did not make that clear either. Anyone wanting to know what the Labour party thinks about the rise in numbers of asylum seekers--about the abuse of the system, about illegal employment, about the drain on taxation, about the burden on housing, and about slowing down the queue of genuine asylum seekers--would be bitterly disappointed after hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The only positive suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made was for a Special Standing Committee to consider the Bill. I would have some interest in a Special Standing Committee as it would comprise the Home Affairs Select Committee--I think that that is what is envisaged by the procedure.
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
Whether that is so or not, it would be the type of Committee on which the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee might wish to sit, so I can safely say that I have some interest in the suggestion.
Mr. Spearing:
Just for the record, is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a Special Standing Committee is a Standing Committee selected to consider the Bill in the normal way under a Chairman from the Chairmen's Panel, but which is allowed to have three sessions of oral evidence to consider matters relating to the Bill? Does he agree from his judicial and court experience that that would enable the Standing Committee that followed to be better focused, and to produce better discussion and even better legislation?
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I served on a Special Standing Committee many years ago, so I doubt whether that would be the end achieved. We considered the Criminal Attempts Bill. The general conclusion was that the Special Standing Committee was a total disaster. As a result of that experience, the Government have set up very few Special Standing Committees.
There was no cross-party conflict about that Bill or its terms. The proposals had received much academic consideration and thought in that Committee, and the Government and the Opposition agreed that some changes needed to be made. It was thought perfectly sensible and desirable that opinion should be tested by the Home Office and representatives from all parties. That was the justification and the reason for that procedure. I cannot claim that in the end we had a much better Bill, and the procedure caused much confusion both in the Special Standing Committee and in what we achieved. One only has to look at a number of the decisions by the Court of Appeal to see how misguided some parts of that legislation had become by the end of the thorough Special Standing Committee procedure.
Mr. Straw:
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the 1981 Criminal Attempts Bill. His
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I beg to differ. There is no virtue in prolonging this discussion.
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham):
You have lost the point.
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
No, I have not lost the point. I stand by my view that that Committee was a total, utter and complete waste of time. If that conflicts with the conclusions reached by any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am sorry. I am entitled to give my opinion and conclusions in the House, and I hope that no Member of the Opposition would want to stop me.
We must ask what a Special Standing Committee would contribute to the problem that we face. Would it tell us any more than we would otherwise learn as the Bill makes its leisurely way through the House? The Bill will have a Committee stage that can last weeks; it will be referred to the House of Lords, where there will be a Second Reading debate and a Committee stage; and it will come back to this House for consideration on Report. The whole procedure will take many weeks and months.
Is it seriously suggested that those who do not like the Bill--because of their membership of a group or lobby or their representative experience--will not be able to make their views known to hon. Members and those in the other place during that time? Will we not know what their objections are to the legislation, on what statistics they will rely, what their individual cases and experiences of hardship may be, what they are prepared to do, how strongly they feel, and how racist they will brand every attempt that is made to curb immigration? What is it that we shall not learn about the fabric, the detail and the intentions of this Bill from the ordinary proceedings of this place? The answer is nothing--as Opposition Members, especially, know. We know from our experience of this place that any section of the community wishing to express a view will not only be able to write to us but will do so. We shall be deluged with material from all sorts of people. There will be nothing to be gained from a Special Standing Committee, except one thing.
Ms Corston:
As Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly makes it clear that members of that Committee should form cross-party judgments on the basis of the evidence, not of dogma. What is so different about this Bill?
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
But that would be a reason for putting every Bill into a Special Standing Committee,
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I would rather not perpetually answer questions. Like everyone else, I am trying to confine my remarks to 10 minutes, although I am not obliged to do so.
The only real reason for a Special Standing Committee is to delay the Bill so that it cannot reach the statute book in this Session of Parliament. The Opposition spokesman earlier made it clear that the Bill will be fought at every stage of the parliamentary process, both here and in the other place, so it is unlikely to reach the statute book before spring at the earliest, even without a Special Standing Committee.
That being so, a Special Standing Committee would serve only to slow down the legislative process, and perhaps to stop the Bill altogether. That prompts the question: should the legislation be stopped? How urgent is it? I do not know whether Opposition Members believe that there is no abuse of asylum even though there has been a massive increase in the numbers applying for it, at the same time as a massive reduction in the numbers applying for asylum in other European countries. Those countries have tougher rules and do not act as magnets to asylum seekers. Here there is massive expenditure of public money on income support and housing benefit, and sometimes even on jobs--
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch the Chair's eye at some stage.
I am explaining why the subject is urgent. The statistics prove that there is a great deal of abuse; that is why something must be done about it. In the coming year there may be as many as 70,000 bogus asylum seekers. We know that most of them are bogus because once the tests have been applied only 4 per cent. of them are found to be genuine. I am not going just on the statistics of the independent assessors and adjudicators who have to consider these matters long before they reach Ministers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary detailed some of the more outlandish cases which Members of Parliament who have to deal with these matters know present themselves every day. Something has to be done about the problem, and quickly, or ever more people will seek to come here and genuine asylum seekers will be kept waiting, not knowing their fate, which is an injustice as great as any injustice that will be discussed here today.
We know that it is not necessary to allow people continually to come here from third countries when the rules state that they should stay in the country where they first arrive. We also know that it is ridiculous that students should be able to complete their courses and then claim to be asylum seekers when they are due to go home. That is a disgrace. Others come as visitors and do not claim
asylum while they are visiting, but when the time arrives for them to go home at the end of six months, they suddenly claim asylum. People in the great world outside may not realise that all a person has to do is say "asylum", whereupon the whole contraption of welfare support and assistance comes into play immediately, just as it does for genuine asylum seekers.
Apart from anything else, that is not fair to the many people waiting for housing in London, or to the people complaining about the inadequacy of their social security payments. A great deal of money is being wasted on people who do not deserve it, do not need it and have no right to it. Action must therefore be taken--and it will certainly not be taken if we set up a Special Standing Committee.
Is the Labour party really keen to do something about bogus asylum seekers? I believe that the party is split. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has always branded all legislation to do with home affairs and immigration as "squalid", though he uses the word so frequently that it loses its meaning. There are some like him, however, who honestly believe that this legislation should not be passed--and thus that bogus asylum seekers should continue freely to come to this country, and that illegal immigrants should be able to come and work and take jobs away from those who are not illegal immigrants.
There are also hon. Members among the Opposition parties who, like the overwhelming majority of the British people, think it a matter of common sense that this country has for far too long acted as a magnet to people with no right to come here, although we ought of course always to remain--and under this Government we always will remain--a haven for those genuinely seeking to get away from torture and persecution. The Labour party is therefore torn down the middle. Instead of resolving the matter by an act of positive decision, it proposes to kick the whole issue into touch: "Let's have a Special Standing Committee--let's not ask too closely what we will gain from it; let's just take the saucepan off the boil, put it on the back-burner and talk about other things."
The Labour party is thus not genuinely asking for closer examination of the matter; it is trying to resolve its own internal problems. There is no reason why Opposition Members should go along with such an imperative, and there is certainly no reason why Conservative Members should pander to the Opposition's desire to pretend to appeal to the great British public at the same time as opposing what we are doing. We must do what is right and the Bill demonstrates our determination to do just that.
We are determined to stand up for those who are genuinely and honestly seeking asylum because of persecution and fear of torture. But we must continue to have no truck with people who come here just because they want to improve their lives, and who in so doing drag down the genuine refugees and the lives of those who need jobs, housing, more money to be spent on them and the concern of British people and the British Parliament.
"I had the very salutary experience of cross-examining two of the leading authorities on criminal law . . . as to the likely effect of a Bill about whose provisions I was already experiencing a sinking feeling . . . At the end of the final sitting of the Special Standing Committee, the draughtsman informed me that not only did the Bill not do what it was supposed to do but that it could not be made to do it."
The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said in May 1986 that every Minister who had given evidence to the Procedure Committee about his experience of Special Standing Committees said that they had greatly improved the Bills that were brought before the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |