---

Mr. Gerrard: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's remarks and I much regret what he appears to be doing. We shall need to read the official record carefully. My impression is that he is making things considerably worse for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. He has talked of cases where evidence was found to show that there was not a relationship and that people were not genuinely living together. That would apply equally to marriages of convenience, which we all know occur. If evidence turns up that a marriage is not genuine or that a couple who are supposedly living together are not, those situations can be dealt with. It does not matter whether it is a common law relationship.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that there is a need to consider the detail of the amendments and whether technically they would work, especially having heard the Minister's remarks. We might need to think about alternative amendments to be tabled and introduced in another place. Having said that, I do not wish to press amendment No. 1 to a Division.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 30, leave out

'In subsection (4) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (pending appeals),'

and insert

'(1) In subsection (1) of section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), for the definitions of "entrant" and "illegal entrant" there shall be substituted the following definitions--
"'entrant' means a person entering or seeking to enter the United Kingdom and 'illegal entrant' means a person--
(a) unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws, or
(b) entering or seeking to enter by means which include deception by another person,
and includes also a person who has entered as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;".
(2) In subsection (4) of that section,'.--[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Schedule 3

Repeals

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 12, line 8, column 3, at end insert--

'In Schedule 2, in paragraph 5(1), the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,".'.--[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Order for Third Reading read.

6.18 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

22 Feb 1996 : Column 542

The Government are committed to maintaining an open and tolerant society that is free from the blight of racial discrimination. We want a society that fosters respect for and understanding of the diverse cultures and backgrounds of all people lawfully present in this country. Firm but fair immigration control is a necessary pre-condition for such a society.

The Government are determined to maintain the United Kingdom's honourable tradition in providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. We shall continue to meet in full our international obligations, including those under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees.

The Bill aims to improve our asylum and immigration procedures in three ways: first, by strengthening our ability to deal rapidly with bogus claims; secondly, by countering the economic incentives to illegal immigration; thirdly, by combating the despicable crime of immigration racketeering.

The Bill received its Second Reading on 11 December. Since then, the need for its asylum provisions has become even more pronounced. The number of asylum claims in the last quarter of 1995 was a record, bringing the total for the year to nearly 44,000, which is nearly double the level of claims in 1993. The number of asylum seekers awaiting a decision or appeal has risen to 84,000, and the average time for completing a new asylum claim now stands at 19 months. Queues and delays of that magnitude represent a threat to the integrity of our immigration control. The measures that we are proposing in the Bill are essential to prevent abuse and to allow us to give help speedily to genuine refugees.

To enable us to deal quickly with unfounded claims, the Bill provides for designation of countries of origin, wider criteria for certifying claims as without foundation and a more robust application of the safe third country rule. We have also amended the Bill to deal with the growing number of asylum claims in which the applicant has destroyed his documents or persists in maintaining that forged documents are genuine.

Mr. Madden: Can the Home Secretary tell the House when the Foreign Secretary expressed his satisfaction at the inclusion of India and Pakistan in the list of designated countries?

Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, not least because no final decisions have been taken, and will not be taken, as it is necessary to follow the procedures set out in the Bill. In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary, I have listed the countries that we are currently minded to designate. It is right that we should have done so for the convenience of Parliament as it considered the Bill.

Other western European countries have strengthened their legislation since Parliament last enacted an asylum Bill in 1993. It would be very unwise for us to allow this country to be seen as a soft target. Asylum claims have been falling across Europe for the past two years but rising sharply in this country. We now receive the highest number of asylum claims of any country in Western Europe, apart from Germany. The key proposals in the Bill are already in place elsewhere in Europe. Designation of countries where there is no serious risk of persecution, fast-tracking manifestly unfounded cases, making appeals against removal to a safe third country non-suspensive

22 Feb 1996 : Column 543

and making it an offence to employ someone who is not entitled to work are measures which have already been introduced by many of our continental neighbours.

It has been suggested that the solution to the backlogs and delays in the asylum system lies in greater resources and efficiency rather than in legislation and stricter procedures. The truth is that we must do both, and we are doing both.

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): The Home Secretary was not in the Chamber yesterday when I raised the important point about the way in which Ministers respond to hon. Members, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has written to him and I have spoken to him myself about the letter that I received from his junior Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). Will he, please, look into the issue of the way in which Ministers respond to hon. Members? Does he agree that it is important that Members should be told of the outcome of cases which they have raised with Ministers? If he cannot give me an assurance today, will he at least meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further?

Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred that she would write to him about the matter. I shall certainly discuss the matter with my hon. Friend. I understand and acknowledge the point made by the hon. Gentleman, whose company I look forward to later this evening at the Asian "Who's Who" dinner and the presentation of the Asian of the Year award.

Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope it is for the Chair?

Mr. Vaz: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I am not accompanying the Home Secretary; we are on different tables.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair asks a question of an hon. Member, a proper response is expected.

Mr. Howard: We have increased the number of asylum caseworkers eightfold, from fewer than 100 in 1988 to almost 800 now, and we are investing £37 million more over three years to provide even more caseworkers and adjudicators. The new short procedure in the Home Office, which does not require legislation, enables straightforward cases to be decided in three to four weeks. We are using that procedure in a growing number of cases. Overall, we have increased the number of decisions taken from 21,000 in 1994, to 27,000 in 1995, which is a 29 per cent. rise. This year, we expect to take at least 37,000 decisions, which is a further rise of 37 per cent. In January, for the first time ever, we took more than 3,000 decisions in a month.

Our major programme to introduce new information technology will reduce bureaucracy and further streamline all caseworking procedures.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and West Devon): The Home Secretary is speaking about the system. Does

22 Feb 1996 : Column 544

he agree that a two-year wait when an in-country application is submitted is far too long? Does he agree that it generally takes two years before an interview opportunity is given once an in-country application has been made? Does he also agree that, once the interview is concluded, the file is put on hold for another caseworker to consider--which may take another two years--and that the second caseworker does not have the benefit of the knowledge of the first caseworker, who will have had the applicant face to face? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, look into the possibility of ensuring that the caseworker who has conducted the interview and heard the evidence first hand makes the proposal about granting asylum or otherwise? That is currently not the practice. Does he not believe that the practice that I have suggested would be fairer in terms of time and justice--

---