| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but the debate is time limited. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must continue.
There were 14,400 applications for asylum in the last quarter of 1998 compared with 8,455 in the last quarter of 1997. I was interested to hear several hon. Members--particularly those from the Government side--refer to their constituency postbags and the large proportion of applications that they receive that they believe to be bogus. That is clearly a matter of great concern to all our constituents. I echo the comments made on both sides of the House about the unscrupulous immigration advisers with whom this Bill seeks to deal, in part.
In their explanatory notes to the Bill, the Government spell out the perceived financial effects of the legislation. I have some queries about those suggested effects. I believe that many of the Government's comments in the explanatory notes are in doubt, particularly in light of the continuing increase in the number of asylum seekers that I have cited. The Government suggest that the costs and savings that they have described depend on a range of assumptions
When it comes to the extra costs involved in the equation, the Government state:
We then turn to the Government's estimated costs of the comprehensive right of appeal. The Government state:
On visitor appeals, the Government suggest that the net additional cost, which they concede, will be
Under the heading "Immigration Appellate Authorities", the Government suggest that there will be a saving of £350,000 as a result of the removal of the lay members from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I am rather surprised that the Government have done that; nevertheless, they suggest that a small saving will be made.
Under the heading "Immigration advisers and immigration service providers", the Government suggest that the scheme will be self-financing, but add:
Under part VI, "Support for asylum seekers", there will be a new asylum seeker support budget managed by the Home Office
Mr. Hawkins:
No, we are under a time pressure; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am trying to keep my remarks brief because of the limited time.
The notes state that the Government's reducing budget
Having dealt with financial concerns, we come to concerns about natural justice, particularly those of people involved in the road haulage industry. I am certainly
worried by what I am told by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association on behalf of their members, some of whom are my constituents.
The FTA and the RHA point out that the primary reason that illegal immigrants target the UK as their final destination is that our welfare and benefit system is particularly attractive. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out that there is nothing immoral in being an economic migrant and seeking to better oneself. We can all agree with that, but I repeatedly hear concerns from my constituents about the people who wish to take advantage of our benefit system and have no genuine fear of persecution but simply come here in order to scrounge off the welfare state.
The FTA and the RHA state that the chances of illegal immigrants being detected by the authorities are very small. Statistics show that more than 90 per cent. of the illegal immigrants detected in vehicles are detained as a result of voluntary action by the driver or operator of a vehicle; only 3 per cent. are detected by foreign authorities and a further 3 per cent. by UK authorities.
As those two organisations say, the Bill contains no commitment from the Government to encourage any greater co-operation from foreign port authorities to improve security and detection in and around ports--there is not even a commitment to work in tandem with our European partners in France and their port authorities. Also, there is no commitment to increase enforcement activity in the United Kingdom to improve detection rates. Innocent drivers who subsequently discover illegal immigrants aboard their vehicles will now have no incentive to report them to the authorities as so many of them currently do.
The FTA and RHA emphasise the important point that once detected, very few illegal immigrants are deported. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and others pointed out that the prospect of a substantial amnesty being granted to many of those who have sought asylum over the past few years with no proper claim will increase the temptation for those without a legitimate claim nevertheless to seek asylum in Britain.
The FTA and the RHA believe that the Government are using drivers and operators of commercial vehicles as scapegoats, rather than introducing measures to tackle the problem directly. It was a matter of great concern that in the House on Monday 15 February the Minister stated:
On the most recent occasion, the Minister was protected by parliamentary privilege, but he subsequently seems to have accepted that drivers who can demonstrate that they have checked their loads, yet are still unknowingly carrying illegal immigrants, should be provided with some means of defence against the proposed fines. Sadly, the Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards.
The FTA and RHA suggest various amendments. Having considered them, I believe those are sensible proposals. In particular, the organisations suggest deleting clause 20(3)(c) in order to ensure that fair and reasonably achievable defence is available where carriers can demonstrate due diligence. They also suggest that the Secretary of State's commitment to a linked code of practice should be confirmed before any clauses enacting penalties are brought into force.
The FTA and RHA further suggest that there should be an automatic defence where there has been voluntary action by the driver or operator leading to the apprehension of illegal immigrants. Fairness requires that. It is also proposed that there should be provision for compensation where the detention of a vehicle is subsequently determined to be ill-founded. That is particularly important because so many hauliers are small family firms, which may have no more than one, two or three vehicles. The survival of the firm might depend on such compensation.
The FTA and RHA believe that there should be a quickly accessible appeal procedure--
"many of which cannot easily be quantified. For these reasons the figures given are estimates only."
22 Feb 1999 : Column 100
I must be fair to the Government and point out that latter sentence. The explanatory notes continue:
The Government state:
"All costs are full year costs and are given at current prices."
"Taken as a whole the Bill is intended to reduce the costs of the immigration and asylum system. It is expected therefore that this Bill will produce savings, in particular on the support costs for asylum seekers."
In part I, the Government refer to the financial effects of charging for applications for extensions of stay or duplicate endorsements, and state:
"the levying of fees could reduce public expenditure by £15 million or more annually."
They say that this will depend
"on the number of applications made within the chargeable categories".
Under part II, "Carriers' Liability", the Government say that the operation of the new civil penalty regime will be met from existing resources. They state:
"On the basis of l8,000 clandestines detected in 1998, the penalties raised could amount to a maximum of about £16 million a year. The actual amount raised is likely to be substantially lower as a result of the deterrent effect of the penalty and the safeguards which will mean that a penalty is not owed in all cases."
I shall turn in a moment to the grave concerns expressed by the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association and their members about the Bill's provisions regarding carriers' liability.
"It is estimated that the maximum cost of providing automatic bail hearings for immigration detainees will be around £3 million. Some initial training for magistrates involved in this work is also likely to be needed."
The Government do not cost the latter provision. I suggest that more than "initial training" will be necessary. It is likely that much training will be needed in connection with the new proposals. The cost of that may have been underestimated. From my experience in the courts, I suspect that the cost of providing automatic bail hearings could be great.
"It is anticipated that the new system of immigration and asylum appeals will yield savings by compressing issues presently spread over a number of appeal rights into a single appeal hearing. Other procedural changes designed to enable more cases, particularly at Tribunal level, to be dealt with on the papers and to discourage meritless appeals should also produce savings."
I am very sceptical about that. I suspect that there will be substantial increases in costs as a result of the additional appeals, and the Government concede:
"On the other hand, there may be additional appeals arising from claims made under the European Convention on Human Rights."
My experience in the courts leads me to suggest that any case that goes to Europe, especially under the European convention on human rights, becomes very expensive. The Government's suggestion--under part IV of the notes, which is entitled "Appeals"--that
"overall, the changes could produce savings of up to £3.8 million a year compared with the current system"
is wildly optimistic. Indeed, I suggest that the appeals system will lead to yet a further cost to the taxpayer.
"of the order of £0.4 million."
I suspect that they have set it out that way because it sounds smaller. Every other estimate is set out in hundreds of thousands of pounds, but this one is set out as £0.4 million. Once again, the visitor appeals cost estimate is a wild underestimate, and I suspect that the cost to the taxpayer will be a great deal more.
"A Non-Departmental Public Body will be created to regulate immigration advisers, headed by a Commissioner, a Deputy and an administrative team. The cost of the NDPB, including investigating complaints, and an appeals mechanism will be met from fee income. It is not expected that the scheme will lead to any additional public expenditure."
It would be miraculous if a new quango did not involve any net cost. I suspect that in the years to come--I shall be watching with great interest--we shall find that the NDPB will become a new bureaucratic empire, which will be extremely costly to the public purse.
"On the basis that the new support scheme will be a disincentive to economic migrants who do not have a well founded fear of persecution".
The Government are suggesting a reducing budget--£350 million for 1999-2000, £300 million for 2000-2001, and £250 million for 2001-02. The notes continue:
"This was based on estimated costs; it compared with spending of about £400 million"--
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
"compared with spending of about £400 million a year when the Government announced its immigration and asylum strategy in July 1998, which would have increased to £800 million by 2002 if remedial action had not been taken."
We now come to the most crucial words of all:
"Actual spend will depend on a number of factors such as the number of asylum claims and the speed with which they can be handled. These cost estimates may be revised in due course."
I am absolutely certain that they will be revised in due course, because I suspect that the Bill will lead to huge increases in the cost to the public purse. Conservative Members will be watching that with great care.
"Lorry drivers are neglecting to check their loads. It is difficult to resist the idea that most drivers are either culpable, because they accept bribes, or, at best, negligent, because they do not check their loads."--[Official Report, 15 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 592.]
It is fortunate that the Minister was protected by parliamentary privilege when he made that statement in the House. Had he suggested outside the House that most lorry drivers were accepting bribes or were negligent, I expect that he would have faced action. One remembers a former Conservative Minister who got into terrible trouble for referring to "most"--in her case, most egg producers. Much embarrassment was caused by that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |