| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I may not have heard the noble Lord correctly, but I thought that he said that a condition of taking up British citizenship was to renounce all other citizenships. I do not think that that is right. It is perfectly permissible to have more than one citizenship and to have a British passport.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I talked about dual nationality. Obviously, there is a serious problem for people with more than one nationality. However, in the majority of cases, people who take up British nationality are asked to renounce their existing citizenship. I shall be corrected if need be.
I shall refrain from commenting on the 17th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is a member of that committee and I look forward to his contribution on the report.
The Bill contains many proposals that affect children. At the heart of the debate must be the acceptance that refugee children are children first and refugees second. Should parents with children be housed in remote accommodation centres? Should they be denied a mainstream education? Why is the dispersal policy, which has worked in European countries, not working here? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the standard by which the UK's treatment of refugee children should be judged. The policy goes against the grain of our inclusive society. Going to school is a vital and integral part of helping refugees integrate from the date they arrive, even if it is for a short period. It should not be difficult to establish a dispersal policy that caters for education in schools rather than accommodation centres, removal centres or detention centres.
We are also concerned about plans to detain more people by increasing detention spaces from 2,700 to 4,000. The provision for automatic bail hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is to be repealed. If detention is to increase, there must be even more, not fewer safeguards. We have been heavily criticised by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UNHCR and others, particularly for the lack of an independent judicial review of the decision to detain. More people are detained for longer and with less scrutiny in the United Kingdom than in any other European country. The detention process lacks natural justice. The former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, stressed that,
- "it is an important point of principle that when it is deemed necessary to deprive someone of his or her liberty, this should be overseen by the judicial process".
Detention has to be justified in a court of law. Liberty of an individual is far too precious. No one should be detained indefinitely without charge and without having their decisions justified in court.
Let me take up the matter of appeal, which is contained in Part 5 of the Bill. It prohibits an asylum seeker from making an appeal while in the UK against refusal of asylum if the Secretary of State certifies their case as unfounded. It prevents an asylum seeker from appealing in the United Kingdom regardless of the merit of their claims. It is proposed that they can be removed to a third country that is considered safe.
There was no mention of that draconian measure in the White Paper. It has been pushed at a late stage of the Bill's passage through Parliament, giving the impression that once again there is a knee-jerk reaction to our overworked appeal system. It is a policy that is being made on the hoof without giving due attention to the problems that lie at the heart of the asylum system. That part of the Bill failed to receive detailed scrutiny in the Standing Committee in the other place; let us hope that we can put it right in Committee.
Finally, where do we stand on these issues? We want to make sure that, at their fourth attempt, the Government get the Bill right. We want to ensure that while recognising the right of a country to determine its immigration policy, it should never override the protection of those who are victims of torture and persecution. We want to ensure that those waiting for decisions on their claims must be supported with proper advice in a cost-effective way. We want the dispersal policy to work but it must never be exclusive so far as the development of children is concerned. We want to ensure that detention policies should contain more, not fewer, safeguards.
The new asylum package, which is not even part of the Bill, gives the game away. We shall certainly wait for further measures to be proposed in this regard. Above all, we need to raise the level of political debates on these issues. So far, we have failed to give a lead but there is still time to tackle poverty, disease, hunger, war and terrorism, which are at the root of the process of global migration. It requires a global solution and it simply will not go away.
5.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, we are all highly conscious that the issue that we are considering this afternoon is a very serious one, both because it involves the safety of genuine asylum seekers and because of the wider political background in this country and Europe. It is crucial that the public should have confidence in our asylum and immigration policies. It is therefore somewhat disturbing, as has already been indicated, that there have been four Bills in 10 years on this subject. It is vital that the Government get it right this time.
It is not only legitimate but essential that this country, like others, should have an immigration policy that is transparent, fair and non-racist. That policy could be based on the nation state as an economic entity. We need to and should value having
a certain number of people who come every year to fill job vacancies and who wish to share our democratic way of life, whether they are professional or non-professional and skilled or non-skilled. The fact is that immigrants have made and continue to make a huge contribution to our economic life, as well as our life in other respects. It is also worth reminding ourselves that 150,000 British citizens emigrate every year.I begin in this way because if we have an honourable immigration policy—one that is clear, fair and non-racist and one that has a rational basis and which is supported by the general public—it is essential to that policy that illegal immigrants are deterred and that economic migrants, however much sympathy we can and do have for them, should not be allowed entry under the different category of "asylum seekers". I therefore understand and sympathise with the policy of this Government and previous governments in trying to achieve a system in which genuine asylum seekers are identified and supported and in which those whose asylum claims are unfounded should be returned to their own country. That makes for many sad and heartbreaking cases. But if it is done humanely—against the background of a clear, fair and non-racist immigration policy—it is not a dishonourable policy.
I therefore support the general thrust of the Bill, which is to identify and support genuine asylum seekers and, as quickly and humanely as possible, to return those whose claims are not accepted to their country of origin.
Against the criteria of what is humane, I very much welcome the end of the voucher system. My concerns about the issues of accommodation and education of children will be raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
I want to focus on only two clauses in the Bill: those to do with bail provision and rights of appeal. Detention may be a regrettable necessity but it should be used only if it is strictly necessary. There should therefore be the maximum opportunity for people to live in the community on bail. The introduction of automatic bail hearing provisions in Part III of the 1990 Act was seen as a small step towards greater judicial oversight of detention. However, despite several implementation dates being announced, Part III was never implemented and is now to be repealed under Clause 57. That will mean that many asylum seekers will continue to be deprived of their liberty as a result of administrative decisions that are made by immigration officials and that do not have to be justified in any court.
Although asylum seekers will not be prevented from applying for bail for themselves, the proposed repeal of Part III is alarming for a number of reasons. First, asylum seekers may not know that they have the right to apply for bail. Secondly, asking asylum seekers to provide sureties is unrealistic. They have to find someone to guarantee that they will comply with asylum procedures and, in most cases, provide a cash sum that can run to several thousand pounds. Thirdly, lawyers often feel that the requirement for surety
means that potential bail cases do not reach the merits threshold that is necessary for them to be publicly funded.The Immigration Law Practitioners Association, for example, is very concerned about the large number of detainees who remain in detention purely because, as asylum seekers who are newly arrived in the United Kingdom, they do not know two people who are able to stand surety for them. The onus should remain on the Home Secretary to show why detention is necessary in any particular case.
The Medical Foundation views that repeal with equally grave concern. It argues that the implementation of those provisions in the 1999 Act is essential to ensure compliance with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government seek to justify repeal by stating that the number of asylum seekers being held in detention has increased substantially since 1999. That in no way justifies the abolition of a much-needed legal remedy against arbitrary detention; on the contrary, it reinforces its most urgent need.
So long as detention of asylum seekers is genuinely used in circumstances in which it is demonstrably necessary to ensure removal, there is no reason to believe that routine bail hearings, as provided for in Part III of the 1999 Act, would significantly interfere with the efficacy of the asylum determination and removal process. In Standing Committee E in the House of Commons, Ministers claimed that, with a detention estate of 4,000 places, implementation of Part III of the 1999 Act would result in the Immigration Appellate Authority having to deal with 37,200 bail hearings per year rather than with 12,000 per year under existing bail provisions. However, Ministers did not say how they arrived at the figure of 37,200 bail hearings per year. Some experts consider it to be open to serious doubt. If detention was used mainly at the later stages of the asylum determination process in order to ensure the removal of failed asylum seekers, it would be of relatively short duration and the necessary number of routine bail hearings would be reduced accordingly.
My other main concern is about the abolition or restriction of certain rights of appeal. Success at appeal for asylum seekers currently runs, I understand, at about 30 per cent. That is a very high percentage. But the legislation before us proposes removing the vital suspensive effect of an appeal in "clearly unfounded" cases and restricting the right to seek judicial review in the courts.
There is particular concern in relation to Clause 82. Subsection (2) prohibits an asylum seeker making an appeal against refusal of asylum while in the UK if the Secretary of State certifies his case as unfounded. Subsection (3) prevents an asylum seeker appealing in the UK, regardless of the merits of his claim, if it is proposed that he can be removed to a third country which is considered safe. But an appeal against failure to protect against persecution will clearly be meaningless if it is to be carried out from the very country where such threat to life or freedom occurs.
An appeal against refusal from a third country outside the UK, such as a European state, will be equally meaningless. Removal to a third country will make it extremely difficult to appeal against unfair and arbitrary decision-making. What legal basis does an asylum seeker have to remain in, for example, France while pursuing an out-of-country appeal against unfair refusal of his claim in the United Kingdom? Even if an asylum seeker were to remain in a third country while pursuing an appeal against an unfair decision, he would be unable to access the necessary welfare entitlements or legal resources to pursue his appeal.
Finally, refusals of asylum revolve principally around the credibility of the applicant. Adjudicators require the presence of the applicant in order to make findings on credibility. Paper appeals generally fail as a result of that. Therefore, an appeal from outside the UK would usually fail automatically and be worthless, as indeed was the case before the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which established an in-country right of appeal.
I recognise that government have a very difficult task. On the one hand, they must identify genuine asylum seekers and support them and, on the other, ensure that those whose claims are unfounded are dealt with as quickly and humanely as possible. But I do not believe that we can or should pursue the latter aim by dismantling or restricting safeguards which we regard as basic in other areas of law or by keeping people in detention a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. For those reasons, I should like to see regular bail hearings and the right of appeal restored to all asylum seekers, including those whose original application is judged to be "clearly unfounded".
5.42 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House because a tug-of-war is to take place between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons. I shall have to leave in order to do my duty on that front. Therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I am not present for the debate later in the day.
I came to this country with a work permit 37 years ago. I hope that that will be considered to be an argument in favour of and not against work permits. My general point is that the policy on immigration and asylum followed not only by our country but by Europe is totally and utterly wrong. It makes no economic sense in the context of the long-term needs of Europe where the level of the population is falling and where, as we know, we shall have difficulty sustaining our pensions because we shall not have enough able-bodied people to work. As was shown in a UN report two or three years ago, Europe will need something like 150 million to 200 million extra people in order for the age distribution to be sustained to a point where pensions are easily affordable. That report had to be suppressed. I believe that, for obvious reasons, the EU asked the UN not to release it.
Therefore, in a sense, I believe that we are being active in the wrong way. The United States has always had a better policy on immigration and has therefore
benefited from immigration, both legal and illegal, in a way that Europe has not. It is not that Europe is more crowded than America or that somehow we cannot afford immigration. It is simply that Europe is far more xenophobic—I shall not use the word "racist"—than America.Many things that we take for granted about immigration are wrong; for example, that people who want to come to this country are absolutely unwelcome unless they can somehow prove they are completely destitute, in need of asylum and so on. In the context of the long-term needs of the economy, an ideal immigration policy would say that it makes far more sense for people to be admitted, trained and integrated. I do not believe that we are achieving that with our immigration policy. We are saying openly in the Bill that we shall welcome people in certain highly skilled categories. That is very good. We shall have a far more liberal work permit scheme. That should be welcomed. But we have arrived at that position too late.
However, it is not simply the case that the economy needs highly skilled people; it also needs unskilled people. It is a fallacy to believe that we need only software programmers and not plumbers or building workers. Perhaps not now but in the future, we should examine far more carefully the areas where there is need for more people. If a ready supply of people who want to come to this country is available, we should not ask ourselves why they are coming here; we should ask how we can get more to come.
It is a paradox of globalisation that we readily welcome the free movement of capital—indeed, we strongly urge other countries to adopt free movement of capital—but are very reluctant to adopt the free movement of labour. In my view, the reason is that a nation state is an enemy of the free movement of labour. Historically, we have afforded greater privileges to citizens than to foreigners. Because citizens receive welfare rights, we do not want any old foreigners, no matter how destitute, coming to this country and suddenly obtaining rights which we have earned over a long time.
Thereby hangs a paradox. We cannot admit to ourselves that some people can be admitted on a half ration, as it were. We do not want to do that. We admit people only on a full ration. But, given that we admit people only on a full ration, we do not want to admit them at all. That is the paradox.
In America, before I came to this country, I was eligible to apply for a green card before becoming a citizen. Having a green card made me eligible not to vote but to be drafted. That is when I left. The important point is that half the categories of people who are not yet full citizens and who are not yet fully entitled to rights can be placed in a kind of entrance hall. At that stage, one can say that certain citizenship duties must be fulfilled before a person can become a citizen.
Again, we are reluctant to do that, and that is why we get into a muddle. Ours are all-or-nothing policies. Either a person is fully a citizen or he is not: there are
no categories in between. Therefore, we send back economic migrants who are perfectly rational creatures and who would help us if they came to our country. But we cannot admit economic migrants. We can admit only people who come here involuntarily because they are in trouble. Therefore, we discourage voluntary migration and encourage involuntary migration. That is a paradox which we should consider more carefully. I do not believe that very much will happen in the Bill with regard to that, but perhaps we shall all think a little more about how to separate out genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants. Having done that, we should not regard economic migrants as being below contempt and send them back to their countries as soon as possible. Instead, perhaps we could find half-way houses for them. We could provide them with temporary permits so that they could work here and eventually, after five years or so, return to their countries. If we did that, we would get more benefit from economic migration and less hassle than we have at present.
We have set impossible standards for ourselves. We insist that everyone we allow in has to be a full citizen, not a half-citizen. We must remember how valuable refugees can be and have been in the past. I should declare an interest as a member of the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics. As the council's recent paper shows, since 1933 it has supported 18 Nobel Laureates and over 100 members of the Royal Society and the British Academy. All those people came as refugees. However, because in the 1930s they came as refugees from European countries, we were much kinder to them than we are to refugees from non-European countries. We must examine our—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page