| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): I support new clause 1. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) is not present in the House. In Committee he put forward a fundamentally good idea, which has given rise to this debate. However, I believe that his new clause 7 creates conflicts, complications and contradictions. The hon. Member for Blackburn is right: new clause 1 has a lighter regulatory touch and, therefore, should commend itself to the House.
Hon. Members will have dealt with immigration cases over the years and will have horror stories to tell, so I do not think it is necessary to detail such cases. All hon. Members are aware that bogus and fraudulent advisers have taken money from people and abused their position. The issue is not so much about qualifications and passing exams, but more about the bona fides of the people who are involved in this work.
New clause 1 is a good stab at trying to deal with this problem. It is illustrative of one of the difficulties that arose during Second Reading and Committee stage. These are sensitive questions, they are often controversial and
they often raise highly charged issues. In my view, they are questions that are far better settled as a result of consensus and as a result of hon. Members trying to come to a commonly agreed conclusion.
We have missed a unique opportunity to use the special procedures that can be used when debating bills by not having the chance to call witnesses and to draw evidence and to go into that in some detail in Committee. If we had done that, we would have incorporated the sort of ideas put forward in Committee without any controversy whatsoever--instead, it was turned into yet another football. It is a classic example of legislation that should have been examined coolly, calmly and dispassionately. If it had been, new clauses such as these would have presented themselves, would have been scrutinised and would have been incorporated without controversy.
New clause 1 creates a registration system and a new authority under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor. This is long overdue. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the judgment given by Mr. Justice Stephen Sedley in the High Court in ex parte motion Miranda on 31 March 1995. He said:
It is absurd to suggest that it is impossible to legislate on the subject. We can look at overseas examples to see how we could proceed. Australia set up a migration agents registration service in 1992. It has three specific objectives, most of which are incorporated in new clause 1. It was successfully operated in Australia and its three objectives were: to deter professional misconduct by people working as migration agents and immigration advisers; secondly, to improve the standards of professional conduct and quality of service in the industry; thirdly,to provide a way of dealing with complaints against a particular agent. The Australian service highlighted those objectives--dealing with bona fides, setting up a regulatory authority and monitoring the work of people engaged in giving advice to immigrants. The Australians have successfully operated that system.
In this country, the Law Society has a view on the subject. Karen Mackay, who is the secretary of the immigration law sub-committee, says that the society has been concerned for a number of years about the problem of bogus immigration advisers. She said:
The new clauses address the issue head on and are worthy of support.
Lack of control, and the cost of bogus applications and appeals for legal aid on judicial review, lead to enormous costs, which often have to be met by the taxpayer.The new clause should commend itself to the House on the ground of obtaining value for money. In addition, the existence of frightened asylum seekers means that justice requires that such measures should be taken. Many immigrants, frightened at the possibility of having to return to a country where persecution and human rights abuses are rife, will inevitably do all in their power to avoid deportation. To obtain what they assume to be good advice, they will go to anyone who says that he or she is an expert. Many of them will part with their meagre life savings to protect themselves and their families. The persecuted then become doubly exploited as they are ripped off by fraudsters and tricksters, some of whom have no qualifications and, even worse, some of whom have extremely tarnished track records.
The new clause tackles such problems. It ensures that the sort of protection that is already available for registered conveyors is also available for immigrants.The new clause will ensure that bad advice that is given as a result of lack of control will no longer be given.
On that basis, I hope that the new clauses commend themselves to the House.
Mr. Winnick:
I must first apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House. As well as an important meeting with the Select Committee on Procedure, I also have an appointment on parliamentary business. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, other occupants of the Chair and the two Front-Bench teams will accept my apologies if I am not present for the winding-up speeches.
The new clause is important. It is strange that such regulations have not been introduced before, as they have been needed for a long time. Often, people seeking advice are unfamiliar with any form of legal practice. They are encouraged by agencies such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)to make applications that in many cases serve no purpose.
A genuine agency such as the Immigration Advisory Service, or a solicitor or a Member of Parliament, would explain why, in many cases, an application would serve no purpose. Let us take the examples of someone who is in the country genuinely as a visitor and wants to extend his stay, or someone who wants to extend the stay of a close relative who is in the country on a temporary basis. I am sure that I speak for most hon. Members when I say that, when approached by a constituent, a Member of Parliament would explain that an application may be made for an extension but that, regardless of whether that is granted, it may be taken into consideration if the person wants to visit the United Kingdom again. We would explain the options, as would a genuine solicitor or the Immigration Advisory Service.
A commercial organisation, which has no other purpose than to make as much money as possible, would not explain that. It would simply say, "We shall write a letter on your behalf to the Home Office," without explaining some of the disadvantages. From its commercial point of view, there is no reason why it should do so. In so doing, it can cause many difficulties.
Let us suppose that an appeal has gone to an adjudicator and the adjudicator has decided, on hearing oral evidence, to turn that appeal down. There is a further appeal, but
only on points of law to the immigration appeal tribunal. Anyone who is familiar with immigration law knows that there are rarely sufficient points of law to take the appeal further. We would advise that there is no purpose in appealing and that it would be pointless to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal.
Many organisations, however, which are only in the business of making money and have no genuine concern for people's plight, give different advice. They say,"We shall lodge an appeal on your behalf," and name a sum--not always, but often, exorbitant--and the person knows no better. He believes that it is perfectly in order. It is legally in order, but no purpose is served.
An important distinction should be made in immigration law--and no doubt in other parts of law--between sound advice, based on experience, and the type of advice that is often bad and counter-productive. That is why it is necessary to consider closely the organisation that sets itself up and states on a plaque outside the door, "We will write to the Home Office on any matter concerning immigration, passport applications, extending visitors' stay" and so on. The sums involved are exorbitant.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham):
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an idea of the fees charged in those instances by people masquerading as advisers?Does he have any proof of those fees, or is what he says based on anecdote?
Mr. Winnick:
Not entirely. If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn spoke, he would have heard me say that when I was involved in a genuine agency funded by the Government, we were told by some clients that a letter to the Home Office would cost £25. That was before 1979; there has been a fair amount of inflation since then. That was the charge to make a simple request of the Home Office--nothing complicated. No doubt, some agencies charged more even then.
Some of those organisations--if they can be described as such--are only in the business of making as much profit as possible and are not concerned with giving genuine advice. In all fairness, some are genuine, but others would charge as much as possible. That is why they are linked with some agents who operate on the Indian sub-continent. Hon. Members who have heard stories from constituents about relatives or close friends who have received advice from agents on the Indian sub-continent--many of whom operate outside immigration offices in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan--will know that they give bad advice. Those agents are notorious, as are those operating in the United Kingdom--although perhaps not to the same extent.
Some agencies have names that are similar to that of the genuine agency--the Immigration Advisory Service--which has been referred to on several occasions. Such agencies tend to give the impression that they are an official agency. They will not admit to that device and,if pressed, I am sure that they would deny it. Nevertheless, they give the impression that they have much the same powers as the official Government-funded agency. That is extremely regrettable.
"It would be of advantage to everybody who gets involved in these cases in this court if one day there were some such control over those who are able to give advice, in order to attempt to ensure that the sort of problem that this court is looking at does not continue to occur."
"We believe that the Government needs to take action to regulate the activities of fraudulent advisers who prey on vulnerable immigration clients. The Society has discussed this issue with the Home Office, and has pointed out that we have powers only to regulate solicitors, and can do nothing to regulate non solicitor advisers."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |