| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will then give way.
Overall, the aim of these measures is to meet the target set out in the White Paper of two months for an initial decision and four months thereafter for any appeal to have to be dealt with. Those are challenging targets. They depend not only on this legislation, but on the additional investment that we are making to speed up the system.
Much of what I have spoken about today is to do with tightening controls on illegal immigration and against the abuse of the asylum process, but immigration control must also act fairly in respect of all those lawfully resident in this country who, for example, wish to receive visits from family members abroad. One of the provisions of the 1993 Act for which I always thought that there was the least justification was the removal of any right of appeal for such visitors.
Those of us with Afro-Caribbean or south Asian constituents, for example, know at first hand of the strong sense of injustice that the abolition of the right of appeal has engendered among many of our constituents. That is no criticism whatever of the work of entry clearance officers at British posts abroad; it is a criticism of the principle that such decisions should not be subject to any further independent adjudication.
Part IV therefore fulfils our manifesto commitment to reinstate a right of appeal to those who are refused a visa for the purpose of a family visit. Provision may be made by regulations that those who wish to appeal will have to meet the costs of doing so, but fees would be refunded to those whose appeals were allowed.
A related issue is that of a bond scheme. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asked, as I often have in my constituency surgeries, why their constituents cannot give some form of financial guarantee that a relative wishing to visit them will leave at the end of the visit. Part I therefore makes provision for a financial security, or bond, to be required or accepted where visitors apply for an entry clearance. The bond would be forfeit if the visitor did not leave the United Kingdom and we will run a pilot to test the merits of such a scheme before deciding on its wider use.
Part V fulfils a further manifesto--
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
Will my right hon. Friend give way on the question of visitors' appeals?
Mr. Straw:
Yes, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak(Dr. Jones).
Mr. Kaufman:
I, on behalf of my constituents, appreciate very much the fulfilment of the manifesto commitment on this matter. From his constituency
Mr. Straw:
The answer to my right hon. Friend is yes. That issue has caused great frustration, to my constituents as well as to his, and we will certainly look at it very carefully.
Dr. Lynne Jones:
My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Bill will be referred to a Special Standing Committee, which is a welcome procedure. However, he is aware that much of the detail of the proposals is not in the Bill, but will be enshrined in regulations and statutory instruments. Will the Special Standing Committee have an opportunity to consider the drafts of the regulations as well as the Bill?
Mr. Straw:
We are endeavouring to ensure that the Special Standing Committee has as much information as possible. I cannot promise that drafts of all the regulations will be made available at this relatively early stage in the process. However, I can promise that the process manual and the information manual relating to the support scheme will be made available to the Committee. We will get as much information to the Committee as we can.
Part V of the Bill deals with immigration advisers and immigration service providers, and fulfils a further manifesto commitment to regulate immigration advisers. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who first exposed the scandalous behaviour of some of these people, and I pay tribute to him for his work. Like my hon. Friend and me, many colleagues in the House have received endless complaints from their constituents about the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. They cheat their clients and manipulate the system for their own profit. We intend to put them out of business.
The Bill will create a statutory scheme for regulating both unqualified and--to a degree--legally qualified advisers. It will be a criminal offence--punishable on indictment by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both--to provide advice in breach of the scheme.
Part V also makes provision for the appointment of an immigration services commissioner, who will be responsible for administering the regulation of advisers. Only those who are registered with the commissioner, who are members of designated professional bodies, or who are otherwise exempt, will be permitted to give immigration advice and services.
The commissioner will investigate complaints against registered immigration advisers, in the light of which he may withdraw registration or, in certain cases, lay a disciplinary charge. There will be an immigration services tribunal to hear any disciplinary charges laid by the commissioner, and to which any person aggrieved at a decision by the commissioner may appeal.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should give greater publicity to advisory services, such as the Manchester Immigration
Mr. Straw:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My constituents have received good advice from the Manchester Immigration and Advisory Service. I am constantly surprised by how many of the constituents I see each Friday have had large sums of money taken from them either by unscrupulous and unqualified advisers or by less than skilful lawyers, when they could have got far better advice for nothing from bodies such as the IAS.
Mr. Straw:
Many hon. Members want to speak, so I must make some progress.
I shall now turn to part VI, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It contains provisions for a new, national system of support for asylum seekers in genuine need. The current arrangements are a shambles. Cash benefits are available to those who seek asylum at ports of entry until their claims are decided. Beyond that point, they are at risk of destitution. Those who apply in-country are also denied benefits, and under the provisions of the immigration and asylum legislation are immediately at risk of destitution. This impossible result of the 1996 Act led to intervention by the courts, which has meant that, in such cases, the burden of supporting asylum seekers has instead fallen on local authorities. That burden has been particularly acute in London and the south-east.
We are past the point at which we can tinker with the system: radical reform is needed. We must be able to provide support to those in genuine need, but we must do so in a way that minimises the incentive to economic migrants who undermine public support for genuine refugees.
Under the provisions in part VI, support will be provided separately from the main benefit system. The only exception will be unaccompanied children, for whom existing arrangements under the Children Acts will continue.
Mr. Straw:
If I may, I shall make progress, then I shall accept a couple of interventions.
The new scheme will be administered by the Home Office. Accommodation will be offered on a no-choice basis, just as it may be in respect of United Kingdom residents who present themselves as homeless, usually where accommodation is more readily available outside London and the south-east. That does not mean that asylum seekers will be placed in isolated or derelict accommodation. Accommodation is likely to be in clusters, taking account as far as possible of support available from existing communities. Other support will be mainly in kind or in vouchers, with cash payments kept to a minimum. Support will be given only to those who are destitute or who are likely to become destitute. If an asylum seeker has accommodation--for example, because he or she can stay with family or friends--he or she may be given living expenses only. In the case of families with children, support will continue until removal from the
country. Otherwise, support will be given until the determination of any appeal to the appropriate appellate authority against a decision to refuse asylum.
Mr. Iain Coleman (Hammersmith and Fulham):
What hard evidence has my right hon. Friend or the Home Office to prove that cash benefits act as an incentive for unfounded asylum seeking?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |