| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.20 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): The Bill should be about how this country can meet its obligations to itself and to the international community by providing a system of asylum procedures which reinforces our historic tradition, which dates back centuries, of providing asylum for people with well-founded fears of persecution, guarantees that a genuine asylum seeker can find safety in Britain, roots out bogus applicants and achieves those objectives speedily and fairly. I hoped that the Government also wanted to achieve those objectives. If they do, why have they brought forward this concoction of misjudged, unfair, inadequate and provocative measures?
It has been a controversial debate. Many hon. Members have asserted their views with considerable vehemence, which does not always happen in the House. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) said that we needed to tackle racketeers and traffickers. The Opposition agree.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made several telling points in their contributions. They drew attention to clause 10, which states:
I put it to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), and the Home Secretary, why such a wide definition? Is there something to hide? Is there another agenda? Will the Minister explain what those conditions are and will she accept amendments to define the prescribed conditions should the Bill go to Committee? Or is it another case of removing the authority of Parliament--a case of government by edict and withdrawal of child benefit by edict?
There has been criticism from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) expressed concern that there had been insufficient interdepartmental consultation, especially in relation to the housing clauses. He drew our attention to the fact that under the Bill, Westminster council would have additional obligations and incur cost in relation to child care and other matters. I hope that the Minister will respond clearly to those points when she sums up.
The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), among other observations, gave considerable emphasis to the employment clauses and pointed out, in different ways, that they did not believe that they would work. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) argued that there was a need for regulation of legal advisers. We agree with him.
Many of my hon. Friends made speeches of great conviction, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) spoke about the often derogatory use of the word "immigrant". I agree with her about that.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) discussed the impact of the Bill and the social security regulations on the poor. I share his concerns and we shall be in the same Lobby as him this evening to vote in favour of the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Given the controversy and the many strongly held views, would it not have been both wise and reassuring for the Government to have agreed to refer the Bill at this stage to a Special Standing Committee? Would not it have reassured the country about the Bill's purpose? Would not it have allowed a wide range of experts to look at how accurately the Bill's assumptions relate to what is happening to asylum applications and assess the repercussions of any proposals?
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that the perception of the Bill would not be helpful. Much of the problem has been created by people like the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), whose contribution was extremely xenophobic--perhaps worse. He used different language to say what has been said by Andrew Lansley, the Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire and former head of research at Conservative central office. I know that Conservative Members do not want to hear about Mr. Lansley, but this is a key issue. He said:
I hope that the Minister of State will take account of the views expressed in this morning's edition of The Times:
If the Bill is not about playing the race card for party advantage, will the Home Secretary repudiate Mr. Lansley's comments now? That question was put to him following his statement two weeks ago and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in today's debate. If he will not, the House and the country must assume that he agrees with his comments.
Mr. Marlow:
Does the hon. Gentleman want the Bill to go before a Special Standing Committee because it is controversial or because it is not controversial? If it is because it is controversial, does he want all controversial Bills to go before Special Standing Committees? If not, does he want all non-controversial Bills to go before Special Standing Committees? Will he please come clean on this issue, because we are confused?
Mr. Henderson:
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has already made it clear that it would damage race relations if the Bill were considered in a controversial
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
If the Bill were not to become law, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with paid marriage brokers who procure British-born Sikh girls to marry illegal immigrants? An example of such a marriage broker is former Labour councillor Talwar, who ruined the life of a young constituent of mine.
Mr. Henderson:
I am not sure that the Bill deals with that serious issue. It is not the kind of issue that should be used for party political advantage. It should be examined in a cool fashion and we should hear advice from those involved in the case and try to come up with a sensible solution.
Other parts of the Bill are objectionable. Clause 1 empowers the Government to establish a so-called "white list", which they regard as necessary to speed up the process of asylum applications. They say that it also complies with the 1951 United Nations convention on human rights. How can the Government claim that all cases should be heard on their merit when, if the Bill is enacted, there will be clear differences in how applications are dealt with in the future? Is not it clear that there is a grave risk of infringing the 1951 convention because of an inability to convince that cases will be heard on their merit and that genuine applicants will be accepted, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe said in his contribution?
Is it really necessary to deny the right of appeal to applicants who have arrived through a third country and been refused admission, which is the realistic consequence of being forced to make an appeal in another country where one might not even be able to speak the language?
Are not those clauses all the more objectionable if the results of the Bill are that we are encumbered with that ineffective new procedure, the number of cases that go to judicial appeal continues to increase, the backlog remains, long delays build up in the system and, in addition, people feel that the procedures are unfair and damaging to our community and race relations?
Does the Home Secretary accept what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said in a statement two weeks ago and repeated in his contribution today--that additional resources need to be applied to the problems that exist in ensuring that immigration cases are dealt with speedily, and that, if those resources are applied now, it can have the effect that savings will be made in future? As an ex-Minister, who has practical experience of what is happening in the immigration and nationality department, is not the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle right? Is not the only effective way of reducing the backlog and of rooting out bogus applications properly to resource the immigration and nationality department and the judicial system?
Will not the House be damned by our successors if, instead of facing up to the real problem of providing those resources, we agree to the introduction of a demonstrably unfair, divided asylum procedure as a convenience for the Government and their not-so-hidden motives?
Many submissions have been made in the debate about employers' checks on immigrant people. What has possessed the Secretary of State to make that proposal? For 16 years, the Conservative party has made a great
virtue of arguing for the relief of the burden of bureaucracy and paperwork on employers, especially small employers. I do not concede that it has achieved that, and many small employers in my constituency tell me that that is not the case, but I am sure that we have all heard the spin doctoring on that matter. Are not the proposals in clause 8 in complete conflict with what the spin doctors claim from Smith square?
The Home Secretary must now be aware of the opinions of the business community. I do not know whether he has had further correspondence with the Confederation of British Industry, but it initially said that it would find great difficulty with his proposals.
It came as a great surprise to us when the Secretary of State said in his opening statement that, after great difficulty, he had managed to reach an understanding with the Institute of Directors. I suggest to him that he has not reached the same understanding with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who challenged him on how efficacious those regulations would be in relation to small business.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was echoing the remarks of Mrs. Jacqueline Jeynes, who is the employment affairs chairman of the Federation of Small Business. She is not yet convinced. She says:
Other people have also expressed their concern. The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle, for Broxtowe and for Gillingham have said that they feel that many of the proposals that the Secretary of State is making about employers' checks are unworkable.
The Lord Chancellor also expressed concern. He said that there is an
"No immigrant . . . shall be entitled to child benefit . . . unless he satisfies prescribed conditions."
"Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt".
That statement has caused concern in the House, outside the House, with bodies who deal with race and community relations, in the editorial columns of The Times, and with church leaders.
"We are anxious about the effect on race relations if the proposals are hurried through in a contentious atmosphere."
"Mr. Howard's plan is completely at odds with the Government's deregulation drive and will hit those very employers the Prime Minister referred to in his recent conference speech as the 'heroes' and 'risk takers' of this nation."
"unlikely viability of the scheme based on national insurance numbers".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |