| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, while I appreciate what the Government are doing to address this difficult issue—for example, in the change of status for Her Majesty's Haslar detention centre—does the Minister agree that the original Question covering the articulation of a proper policy on immigration has to be addressed in the first instance?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes. That is to be done in an extensive and lengthy White Paper to be published in early February.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister referred to our international obligations. Of course that is correct, but is it sufficient? Do the Government appreciate that,
over the past 13 months, no fewer than eight illegal entrants have been electrocuted inside the Channel Tunnel? In view of that, would it not be wise to consider joint screening in France to determine in which country applications for asylum should best be made?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that my response is no. All that would achieve would be to turn the Sangatte centre into a reception centre or clearing house for claims to enter the United Kingdom. That is the reality of what would happen. The suggestion is seductive, but it is a fact that tragedies are taking place both in the Channel Tunnel and elsewhere. Such acts are extremely dangerous. We have taken what steps we can to inform people staying in Sangatte of the dangers, even using a video produced last year to illustrate how dangerous is the practice of trying to jump on to moving trains, as well as making clear the other dangers implicit in what is taking place. I understand that such behaviour shows the degree of desperation felt, but using Sangatte as a clearing house would not solve the problem.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, at an all-party meeting held last night, my noble friend said that 600,000 people came into this country illegally last year. Why can they not be turned back when they come into the country? My noble friend said that they can be turned back at the ports, but could they also be turned back at the mouth of the Channel Tunnel and thus sent straight back to the safe country of France?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should put it on the record that 600,000 people enter Europe illegally each year. The approximate rate of entry of asylum seekers to this country per year is 5,000 to 6,000 per month, a figure which has remained fairly static for a while. However, as I have said, it has been estimated that around 600,000 people enter the European Union illegally each year.
I return to a point I made in response to an earlier question. I must stress that we return some people immediately, at the port and sometimes on the same aircraft that brought a person into the country. The rate at which such removals takes place is running at 30,000 to 40,000 per year. Not all those entering this country by such means go on to claim asylum, but if such entrants do claim asylum, we then fulfil our international obligations by judging each claim on its own merits. That means that it is impossible to remove someone immediately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the 1951 convention was agreed between many civilised countries, there were relatively few people who were considered likely to be refugees? However, since then, large numbers of refugees in various parts of the world are now being forced to leave their own countries for racial, political or religious reasons. Would it not be wise now to suggest that the convention should be renegotiated and revised?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good case. The situation today is not the same as it was 50 years ago when the convention was drawn up. We now have the phenomenon of internationally organised trafficking in human beings for economic purposes. Sometimes there is also a hint—it is only a hint—of mass exoduses from some countries being encouraged for political purposes; that is, in order to put pressure on other countries. International discussions are under way, but I have to tell the noble Lord that until the convention is changed we shall fulfil our international obligations under it. I say that because there are people who cannot claim protection under the 1951 convention, which relates to some of the issues raised in regard to the anti-terrorism Bill passed last year, so it is not a completely open door. That point should be put on the record.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister explain whether there are any legal means by which an individual can enter this country and claim asylum?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think that the short answer to the noble Lord's question is no.
Census Internet Site
2.57 p.m.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When it will be possible to access the site www.census.pro.gov.uk to allow public access to the 1901 census details.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the 1901 census Internet site went live on 2nd January. It was additional to the normal free microfiche service which was also released across the country. From 7th January, due to unprecedented demand, Internet access to the website was limited to users at the Family Record Centre and the Public Record Office, as well as at 150 libraries and service centres across the country. Qinetiq is now enhancing the website and the general Internet service will be restored incrementally on completion of the work.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I congratulate the PRO on its decision to make the 1901 census available online, and on the enhancements now being made to the website which will enable a larger number of users to access it, can the noble Baroness explain why the PRO did not accept the advice of the FRC consultative committee which, on 10th October last year, found that the PRO was underestimating demand for the website? Why did the PRO not take advice from the Mormons, who had a similar experience when their website went live in May 1999? Furthermore, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many users per day and how many hits per day will the website be able to cope with when finally it does go live?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the PRO did take advice along the lines indicated by the noble Lord. We were aware of the experience of the Mormons. But noble Lords will know that, following its launch, the Mormon website, "FamilySearch", now experiences 7.4 million hits per day, which equates to 89,000 visitors or users per day. We scoped for 1 million users per day, rising to a peak of 1.2 million, which is the settled rate. That is a huge number of users. We did fully take into account the possible interest that might be generated by the website.
The website should be able to deal with a user rate of 1.2 million per day. Noble Lords should also know that, when the website came online, the hit rate ran at 1.2 million per hour. No scoping exercise could have reasonably anticipated such a vast interest.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned that, during the period while the website is not up and running, various venues across the country have been made available so that people can gain access to it. Can she detail where those venues are located? Furthermore, can my noble friend tell the House a little about how the website has been constructed? I had understood that the website was designed to be socially inclusive, rather than simply to address those known organisations and individuals with an interest in genealogy.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right, the 1901 census site was intended to be socially inclusive—and it is. One of the delights of the site is that ordinary men and women—not only the historians and genealogists who normally use the site—have been able to have access. There is a growing fascination among all of us about our history. The people of this country and the diaspora—particularly our American cousins—are exploring the site with great energy. We celebrate that and are grateful for it. But we have had to manage it—and we are trying now to manage that interest. There is a free microfiche or microfilm service available across the country at local record sites and at the PRO office at Kew.
As I said, the site has been scoped to deal with up to 1.2 million users and access is available at 150 sites across the country in libraries and service centres. We have them in Norfolk, Liverpool, Lincolnshire, Essex and Newcastle. There will be positions in Exeter, Dorset and Wiltshire. Our Welsh colleagues need not worry that we have forgotten them because Powys is coming soon.
Lord McNally: My Lords, given the interest in this subject, are there any plans to put earlier censuses on the site? There is an interest in genealogy and we might find that we have more blue blood in the House than is known.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, some people may be surprised by what they have in this House. There is a real interest in this subject. One of the joys of being able to do this is that we know that we have tapped into something which connects with ordinary
people in the street. We carried out a scoping study in relation to an earlier census and it is likely, if we get sufficient money, that we will look at further and other matters for which we can provide a similar service. For instance, we know that there is a huge interest in relation to the First and Second World War records. I can assure the House that this is just the beginning.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |