| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman were to look more carefully, he would see that the report refers to "north and south respectively". The right hon. Gentleman ran them together, and referred to the "north and south", which gives a rather different impression of the view at that stage. Northern Ireland is already a practising democracy, and therefore is different from some of the examples that the right hon. Gentleman gave.
The underlying point remains the same. We have sought to gain the confidence of both communities from the outset. If we do not obtain their confidence, we cannot carry the process through to a conclusion. That point cannot be ducked if we are to reach a settlement.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach and achievements to date? Could he confirm that there are two alternative approaches to all-party talks: one is through the acceptance by the parties of the six principles, and therefore confidence-building measures; and the other is through the election? Does the election require that the people standing for election should adopt the six principles first?
The Prime Minister:
No, the two routes are not quite as my hon. Friend set out. The first way to obtain the confidence that would lead to all-party talks would be some prior decommissioning by the paramilitary bodies. On that basis, I think that all parties would come together and talk without an election.
The second way would be the elective basis that I set out this afternoon. If that is to be successful, we would hope and expect all parties to declare their support for the six principles. Those are the two options--either some prior decommissioning, or, through the process of an elective body, to determine who would take part in the negotiations.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford):
Does the Prime Minister accept that, like the hon. Member for Foyle(Mr. Hume), all right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches live in Northern Ireland? They have suffered as well, and they speak for a large section of the community that has been severely hit by terrorism for 25 years. We are equally anxious to ensure that peace prevails in the long term in Northern Ireland.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that, although we accept the six principles in the report, we do not agree with other elements in it? We welcome the
Prime Minister's statement to the House, and we emphasise that we welcome also the thoughtful response by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
As to the forthcoming election in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister correct the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who does not understand the difference between an assembly and an elected body? If that hon. Gentleman is in the British-Irish Parliamentary Association, he ought to know the difference.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we are talking not about an assembly but about an elected body, having no legislative or administrative powers in Northern Ireland? Can the Prime Minister tell the House that, in co-operation with Her Majesty's Opposition and other parties, he will expedite the election to ensure that it does not coincide with other possible elections--for example, a general election in the Republic of Ireland?
The Prime Minister:
I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's support. The whole House knows of the time when the right hon. Gentleman was badly wounded as the result of an incident in Northern Ireland, and of the courage that he has shown in his career in politics since then. Many Northern Ireland politicians on both sides of the divide have shown great courage. I draw no distinction in the difficult circumstances of politics in Northern Ireland. I hope that those politicians will show the same moral courage to move forward as they have shown physical and moral courage in the past.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot agree with every point in the Mitchell report. I dare say that no one does. Over time, it may turn out that one of the report's greatest strengths is that everyone will find something in it with which he can agree, and something with which he is not quite so happy to agree.
As to the proposed elections, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned that they would establish a body that had no legislative or administrative powers. I hope that it will be of assurance to everyone across Northern Ireland that it is a mechanism for getting into all-party talks and finding a proper solution, following which I hope that we can ensure that politicians in Northern Ireland are able to take a greater share of responsibility than they have been able to do in the past.
Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster):
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that real, genuine and lasting peace is a rich prize for the people of Northern Ireland--and something that they do not want in any way to see thrown away.
I am sure that the Prime Minister recollects that two years ago, in 1993, the leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and myself presented a document proposing a constitutional convention for Northern Ireland. Bearing it in mind that at least 70 per cent. of all the people right across the community in Northern Ireland support such a body, surely the matter should be moved upon with utmost urgency. Surely no one in a democracy should be afraid of the will of the ballot box.
The Prime Minister:
I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I recall the proposals for a constitutional convention that the hon. Member for North
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh):
May I assure the Prime Minister that we fully support the six principles, unequivocally and without any reservations? I also wish to point out that people should read the fifth principle--paragraph 20(e) as it is in the document--carefully before they start talking about the absence of the principle of consent from the document.
I wish to refer the Prime Minister to a section of the document that he mentioned earlier--paragraph 34 of Senator Mitchell's report. That paragraph recommends that all parties, including the Governments not "might", not "may", but "should" follow a course of action in terms of decommissioning as part of the talks process.
Is not the reality of the situation that the Prime Minister and the Government are actually rejecting that core element of Senator Mitchell's report, and that, not only on that but on all the key political elements of the report and the recommendations, the Prime Minister is at odds with Senator Mitchell, his commission, and the Irish Government? Is not the Prime Minister creating a situation in which the consensus that will be required in any democratic experiment simply will not be there, because he is at odds with those with whom he should be working closely on the central, fundamental elements?
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have worked very closely with him and his hon. Friends over the past three years, and I look forward to doing so in future.
On the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, if he considers paragraph 20(e)--or principle five, whatever one wishes to call it--he will see that at best it means limited consent, not full consent, in the terms of the documentation that we have seen in the past. Limited consent I concede: full consent I emphatically do not concede. That is most certainly not the case.
I have two points to make to the hon. Gentleman about paragraph 34, and both are accurate and pragmatic. First, paragraph 34 is not a recommendation, and is not put forward as a recommendation. Secondly, it does not get everyone to the table. We have to get everyone to the table in order to advance, and that is the purpose.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the elections. The purpose of those elections is not to produce some body that would return to the concerns that the nationalist community has had in the past. The purpose is to enable a process to take place so that people can be elected to a body that does not have legislative powers, and to ensure that there is a democratic mandate for negotiations, and everybody can sit down together.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has been as passionate as any Member of the House over the years about getting everybody to sit down together and discuss the future. All I would say to him is that here is a way of achieving that, and he should not turn away from it.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth):
I beg to move,
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the Bill to the House. My Bill seeks to establish a system of registration to improve the standards of immigration advice practitioners. It is designed to help their clients--sometimes the most hapless victims and most vulnerable people in our society, and drawn largely from the ethnic minorities. Those clients are occasionally, and more and more frequently, at the mercy of unqualified and incompetent immigration advisers.
Those so-called advisers, or cowboys as I prefer to call them, operate by exploiting the ignorance of applicants and to reap large fees for poor-quality--and sometimes deliberately false--advice. In so doing, they extend and complicate the immigration application procedures, prolong the duress on the applicants, make them pay large fees at regular intervals and clog up the entire system of processing applications, to the detriment of genuine applicants.
Those people build up a large case load of work, which the taxpayer pays for, and embark on appeals, tribunals, judicial reviews and so on, funded by legal aid. In parallel, they charge their clients exorbitant fees at every stage.
If we are serious about stopping bogus applications, we must address the source of the problem: bogus advice given by bogus advisers who exploit applicants for reward.
It is not in the interests of bogus advisers to settle applications swiftly and satisfactorily. It is in their interests to prolong the process--until it fails, at which point their hapless clients are either prevented from entering the country or are removed from the country, erasing at a stroke any future action against them for negligence or complaint.
The scale of the problem is difficult to quantify, but from a small survey in the London area I have enough evidence to claim that between 70 and 80 per cent. of immigration advisers are of doubtful provenance. That of course excludes qualified solicitors, citizens advice bureaux and other reputable advisory services, and Members of Parliament.
My Bill is designed to license the cowboys who set up shop, advertise, charge fees and then move on, leaving chaos and despair in their wake.
At this point, I should like to quote the authority of Mr. Justice Stephen Sedley, chief immigration liaison officer in the High Court. On 31 March 1995, in ex parte motion Miranda he said, obiter dicta:
Other countries have faced this problem and set out to resolve it. Three years ago, Australia passed a statute--the Migration (Amendment) (No. 3) Act 1992, which confined the right to give advice to lawyers or to registered agents. In order to secure registration, proof has to be given of competence and some financial security. The Australian migration agents registration scheme has an independent board appointed by the Immigration Minister, which has the power to register aliens, to investigate complaints received about an agent and to impose disciplinary sanctions on an agent.
Voluntary workers are required to register, but are exempt from paying registration fees. Criminal penalties exist for unregistered practice. So far, 1,800 agents are registered under the Australian scheme; 307 have been refused registration; 270 have been deregistered; and 741 complaints have been received.
As some of my colleagues know, I am strongly committed to deregulation, but I also recognise, just as the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 recognises, the principle of necessary protection, as defined in the 1994 Act and in Standing Order No. 124(A). I do not believe that self-regulation will work. The cowboys will not register. They will operate by word of mouth and client ignorance. Under self-regulation, the relevant bodies will not have the power to monitor and police themselves. Cowboys are mobile and can set up shop at any time under assumed names. They then charge their clients arbitrary fees.
My Bill is designed to set up a council of licensed immigration advisers, whose duty will be to maintain and ensure standards of conduct and professional competence among those who practise as immigration advisers. The council will issue licences and will maintain a register, under the direction of the Secretary of State. It will also have powers to investigate and to make rules. It will be an offence to pass oneself off as an immigration adviser without a licence. It will be an offence liable to summary conviction and/or imprisonment for someone to practise as an immigration adviser in return for payment or material reward without holding a licence.
My Bill will protect the most vulnerable. It will make the application process more efficient. It will save the applicants who are now exploited a considerable amount of money. Most important, it will save the public money, by reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the legal aid that is being used because of the poor quality of advice that is given by unqualified or incompetent immigration advisers.
4.37 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a system of registration for approved immigration advice practitioners; and for connected purposes.
"I want to say that this court sees a sorry trail of applicants whose rights have been forfeited or lost or garbled or injured by putting themselves into the hands of unqualified advisers in the immigration field."
24 Jan 1996 : Column 372
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |