| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I have looked at the debates. In 1904 and 1905 the reception given to people who came here, largely from Russia and other countries, was appalling. Whether they were white did not matter. Does my noble friend recognise that since 1904 many of those people have made a real contribution to this country, like my noble friend?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I recognise that. I remember Tom Mann, who was a leading trade unionist, going to the dockside and saying to his people, "You are our brothers but I wish you had not come". But they came and made a good contribution. The fact that people are unwelcome at one time does not mean that they cannot make good contributions. Most short-term judgments are wrong in that respect.
We complain about people having to stay here pending appeal or about people who cannot be deported although their applications have not been accepted. It would be a good idea at some stage—I do not know how we can do it—to find a way of using such people in a productive way, which we have not done. Many of those people are no doubt talented. Many asylum seekers may be doctors, teachers, or other professionals. They are not all "ragged" people. We need to take a more positive attitude to migration and asylum.
I have heard mention of biometric evidence. As a frequent flyer to New York I have a visa which allows me to go through much faster than anyone else because my palm print is on the record. Apparently, a palm print is a unique identifier and is much less intrusive than many other means of identification. If Americans can do it, we should be able to get it done properly. Therefore, people who apply for asylum should perhaps be asked to give a palm print, which could be stored.
The problem is that we are not willing to admit people because we do not want to give them full rights. When they come we cannot process them quickly. Therefore, we have a problem with delays building up. As delays build up, the press and various other racist opinion force us to treat those people very badly indeed. We should be able to have such people in some type of half-way house so that, first, while they are here, we know who they are and where they are so that they can be traced; and secondly, they can be used productively so that whether they stay or go, at least while they are here we can benefit from their presence and they can benefit from spending their time here in a productive way rather than in a sad way.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I want to raise the key issue mentioned by the Minister of the integration of those asylum seekers who are given leave to remain as refugees. My particular concern is about the housing of those who are dispersed away from London and the South, mostly to the conurbations of the North. When those asylum seekers hear the good news that they have been given refugee status, they are also informed that they will have only 28 days in which to move out of the accommodation which has been provided for them by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, of which I am director, is funding an asylum seekers and refugees housing network, organised for us by the Housing Associations' Charitable Trust. As a member of that network I have been able to meet a number of asylum seekers and refugees and learn about the housing difficulties which they face. In effect, a decision on their status, paradoxically, is also an eviction notice.
Of course, their new homes must be vacated when they become entitled to stay in this country to make way for another asylum-seeking household. But I suggest that the obligation to leave within 28 days is, for many, unreasonable. In particular, if those decisions are now expected to come through much more quickly, the timescale for those households to become in any way integrated in the locality—including in learning the English language—is too short. It can take several weeks after getting refugee status to get a national insurance number, without which formal work or any benefits cannot be obtained. Within the period of four weeks the household will also need to find accommodation and work their way through the incredible tangle of the housing benefit
system. Although the nation has accepted them as residents in this country, the chances of integration, fitting into the community and getting a job, are slim with such a tight timetable.For those of us concerned with overall housing shortages—the latest statistics show another rise in homelessness—that presents extra challenges. Although people have been dispersed as asylum seekers to areas of relatively low demand for housing, if they receive no help in staying there, it is likely that many will return very swiftly to London and the South East where they have contacts and networks. Families will then present themselves to the London Boroughs as homeless, and despite the pressures in London, those local authorities will have an obligation to find them housing. That is exactly the outcome which the policy of dispersal was intended to avoid.
I suggest two ways in which pressures on London and the South East can be eased, a further escalation in the homelessness crisis can be avoided and the families and individuals can be given a much greater chance of integrating into the local communities to which they have been sent. First, if the period for the notice to leave, currently 28 days, was extended to two months, a little more time would be bought for those households to obtain a national insurance number, receive the guidance they need and find the accommodation they require. The cost of an extra month's rent will not be high as the accommodation will not be in a high-priced area, but it could greatly increase the chance of the household staying in the neighbourhood to which they have been dispersed and settling there. There are promising signs in some places that the policy of dispersal is beginning to work and new communities are forming. That process could be much helped by giving those the right to remain another month before they are required to leave their home.
My second suggestion is that during the period of grace, before the refugee household is evicted, there should be an obligation on the Home Office to ensure that help and support are available. Currently what help is available comes haphazardly from the private sector housing providers, which are not paid to do this extra work, from local authorities, from excellent community refugee organisations, faith communities, housing associations and others. But there are no formal mechanisms for making certain that such help is given.
In the same way that the Homelessness Bill was amended by your Lordships to improve the service of advice and guidance which local authorities are obliged to give to those in severe housing need, so too an amendment to this Bill could help ensure that people obtain the support they need in form-filling, a search for a property, introductions to reputable landlords and the rest.
Without those two measures I fear escalating problems of homelessness which will exacerbate problems in London, undermine the policy of dispersal and sabotage the prospects of integration for many refugee households. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a reassuring statement on that issue.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the President of YMCA (England), which does work with refugees and asylum seekers, and as a member of the Oxfam Association.
I am concerned to learn that much of the Committee stage of this Bill will occur when I have to be in Russia and Chechnya on Council of Europe business. I regret that I shall not be here for those proceedings.
At the outset of my remarks I pay tribute to the many non-governmental organisations working in the front line of what this Bill is all about. Their insight and briefings are always invaluable.
In welcoming my noble friend to his first major Front- Bench assignment in his new ministerial role, we should not underestimate the burden he is carrying. He brings to the task a great deal of relevant professional experience. We wish him well. This whole realm of policy is extraordinarily complex and highly demanding; it is also emotionally charged. We should all have the humility to keep asking ourselves what we would be doing and what we would be advocating if we were in my noble friend's place. Our criticisms will therefore, I hope, be constructive.
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend, for his part, will avoid tilting at windmills as a distraction from recognising the validity of criticism that may be made. Nobody that I have heard in this House advocates an open-door policy. It is not on the agenda. It is not a practical possibility. On the other hand, everybody that I have heard recognises that there is a challenge which must be faced. The debate is about how to face it.
There is a good deal in the new policy to be welcomed; for example, the abolition of humiliating vouchers; the concept of positive resettlement programmes; and the attention to citizenship, even if that raises issues about how far those whose citizenship is established and unquestioned would always understand what we shall expect newcomers to understand. Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to raise anxieties about provisions for the removal of citizenship in certain circumstances.
But the context in which we approach legislation and the perceived motivation behind it are crucial to its success. If we are to give a lead in finding the right way forward based on firmness and justice in the protection of refugees, it is, for example, essential to be accurate about the dimensions of the challenge we face. We must not allow sensationalism in some less responsible quarters of the tabloid press to lead us by the nose into a world of hyped illusion. We must be clear about whether numbers are accelerating or declining and, whichever it is, by how much. We also need to be clear about total numbers. It is frankly disturbing, as we have said before in this House, that recent research demonstrates that many people in the United Kingdom believe the numbers involved here to be 10 times as large as they really are.
That does not mean that there is not a social challenge in immigration to be addressed. But it does mean that we must at all costs avoid inadvertently
pandering to that exaggeration and allowing it to influence our actions. To do that would be particularly sad when there is also so much reliable evidence that the majority of people in the United Kingdom are well informed and deeply concerned about the pressures and persecution that force people to uproot and move. We should be building on that concern with far more information about the waves of immigration we have so well accommodated in our nation's past and about the great contribution made by those immigrants and their descendants—not least in government and Parliament—to the strength of the United Kingdom.We must be careful at all times about language and the messages it sends. Nuances matter greatly. There is a significant difference between saying in effect, "While of course there are legitimate asylum seekers, our main preoccupation and priority is to repatriate bogus asylum seekers", and saying, "While of course there are those who are not legitimate asylum seekers, whatever the pressures that led them to move—and we must deal appropriately with that—our main preoccupation and priority remains to stand by and protect those whose need is real".
Similarly, to rename detention centres "removal centres" indicates a very clear primary preoccupation to refugees and the public alike. When claims are made about "success rates" achieved in repatriation, the implications are again obvious. The word "success", if it is to be used, should refer to success in protecting those at risk. What we should surely want to be able to claim is effectiveness in determining cases and ensuring the safe repatriation of those who do not qualify, always assuming that safe repatriation is indeed what we are achieving.
Meanwhile, however they originated, headlines about the Royal Air Force repatriating by the plane load those who do not qualify, hardly assists in encouraging support and positive public attitudes. To describe the 1951 convention as having been introduced in a different world and being in need of revision because of its current operational implications, can all too easily be open to the interpretation that, because of the scale of the refugee challenge, the principle enshrined in the convention has become inconvenient. That leads us into dangerous waters, if principles become seen as variable in the face of expediency. Again, this is why it is imperative constantly to keep clearly in mind the grim realities that compel people to leave their homes and move.
Clearly, effective international action which works is needed if the challenges are to be met. But in our approach to co-ordinated European Union action we must be careful not just to shove the burden on to those outside the European Union in Europe and beyond. Whatever the necessary immediate action, the international policies, if they are to prove effective, cannot simply be about controlling entry; they must also be about resources for economic and social development in deprived parts of the world; they must be about the fair trading system which enables the deprived meaningfully to join and benefit from global economic activity; they must be about environmental policies (global warming will yet dwarf our present migration difficulties); they must be about pre-emptive
diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping, conflict resolution and security sector, military and civil, reform. They must be about building and resourcing convincing systems of justice throughout the world. But they must also be about effective economic and social policies here in Europe, not least on housing. Too frequently the main burden of migration falls on those least well equipped to carry it—the relatively poor and disadvantaged. It is in a socially dynamic situation that integration will be most easily accomplished.Without the matrix approach we shall be like bad doctors, frantically treating the symptoms but ignoring the causes of the illness. Candidly, I am far from relaxed about the distinctions drawn between refugees in general and asylum seekers, and indeed between them both and so-called economic refugees and migrants. The anxieties, stress, pressures and suffering which lead economic refugees or migrants to move can be appalling. Here in the United Kingdom if a steel mill or a car plant closes, the people thrown out of work who go off in search of a new life for themselves and family elsewhere in the country are seen as model citizens. Yet despite all our rhetoric about a globalised economy, the people who have no alternative but to do the same thing across frontiers are frequently regarded as pariahs—the very term "economic refugee" or "economic migrant" can be used to denigrate.
We have the free movement of capital across the world, but not of labour. So long as that imbalance remains unaddressed, there will be an inevitability about people-trafficking, fed by human need and economic forces as the market adjusts itself. Such a massive distortion in the global market makes the matrix of social and economic intervention polices to which I referred indispensable. There is no option. What is in effect our hypocrisy can at times be grotesque. We have rightly called for tough action against cynical and cruel traffickers, but at the same time we have enjoyed the menial low-paid services provided to the economy and to society by illegal immigrants.
On children, the Bill does not self-evidently reflect the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Indeed, it is distressing that the Government have entered a reservation on that convention as it applies to refugee children. As the British Refugee Council and others insist, children are children first and refugees second. Surely we all agree on that. It is unacceptable that innocent children should ever be compelled to be in detention. And the arrangements for education of children who will have endured great trauma should be convincing. Those arrangements should contribute to and in no way inhibit integration for children who, ultimately, will stay. That is why there is so much room for doubt about what is proposed in terms of segregated education. Access to nursery education in the community is perhaps one of the single most important contributions that can be made to effective integration.
On support, the Bill leaves a good deal of room for anxiety. If in our general social welfare provisions for British citizens we have established a minimum standard below which people should never fall, what possible justification can there be for refugees being expected to survive below that level? Are they not people too? The prospect of the "support only" arrangements being withdrawn from any refugee is disquieting. The infirm may well understandably decide to stay on with family and friends, even if the authorities want them to leave. That could increase the burdens on the already socially hard-pressed.
The accommodation centres raise a number of questions. How will they be evaluated and by whom? What are the risks of institutionalisation, particularly if, despite good intentions, stays in them prove, for some at least, to be considerably longer than anticipated? Is there room for a legal maximum on the length of stay? Will the centres not prove to be too big and isolated? What about access to a meaningful range of services? Would smaller community-related centres be a better proposition? What of guaranteed access to legal advice? Has there been enough consideration of the well-being of single women in such centres? Of course, there is the issue of education. The creation of those centres seems to involve much effort and resources for what may be only 10 per cent of total numbers. Can we be certain that there is not an unhealthy element of public relations and tokenism governing policy in that respect, and could the resources be put to more convincing use?
Arguably, the greatest single area of doubt surrounds the legal dimensions of the Bill. Does my noble friend accept that experience repeatedly demonstrates that the constant availability from day one of good legal advice helps—not hinders—the administration of policy in that fraught sphere? Is not the absence of proper legal scrutiny of executive action always wrong? Why is there no general right of appeal or of judicial review while still in the United Kingdom? How can the removal of automatic bail hearings for those detained be justified? I know that it has been argued that the provision for such hearings can be used to frustrate the administrative process—that is a dubious argument in itself—but where is the evidence for that? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has pointed out, such hearings have not yet been introduced.
Again, as the right reverend Prelate argued, to enable appeals to be pursued from outside the United Kingdom after removal is hardly convincing. Is it really suggested that it makes sense for someone to be expected to appeal from their country of origin when that is the very country in which they claim to be in jeopardy? What about making an appeal from a third country? Can we be certain that the applicant will have the right to stay in the country during the appeal? To take just the European Union, the absence of harmonised interpretation of the convention is highly relevant; for example, some member countries accept the danger of persecution by non-state agents and others do not. Above all, as the right reverend Prelate
argued, in the appeal procedure the credibility of the applicant is crucial, but the applicant will not be available.Surely it is significant that currently one third of Home Office decisions are overturned and some experts believe that with good legal advice it would be more. What exactly is the Bill about in that respect? The qualifications and training of officials making what can be life and death decisions should also be taken more seriously. At present, the situation is far from consistently reassuring. Similarly, medical evidence, both physical and psychological, is still not always taken as seriously as it should be. There is then the worry about the list of so-called safe countries. Could we not now, as has already been suggested, take the opportunity of the Bill to introduce arrangements for independent assessment?
The great statesmen of the post-Second World War era had vision and determination. They had come through a terrible conflict. In the Declaration of Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, they crafted statements of what they knew to be essential if civilised values were to prevail and extremism of right, left or any other kind was to be defeated. They were not woolly people; they were tough realists. They had far fewer economic resources at their disposal than we have. I wonder how they would react to our current neurotic preoccupations, weighing deterrence against protection. One measure of the quality of our civilised values and of our compassion must surely be how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst.
As the Jubilee and many sporting occasions like the World Cup remind us, diversity is the joy of creation—not a threat. It is something to be enjoyed and celebrated—not smothered. Positive approaches to immigration, refugees and asylum will make the outcome more successful. A negative culture surrounding the legislation, however important, will inevitably be self-fulfilling in making a cheerful self-confident, multi-cultural society with effective integration more difficult to achieve.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Home Secretary introduced the Bill on 24th April he said that he hoped that there would be unanimity as to its contents. He assumed that any disagreement expressed at that time was simply due to misunderstanding and could easily be cleared up.
What has happened? We have just heard several speeches that must sound to the Minister—for whom I have the greatest compassion—rather unlike sweetness and light. During the past eight weeks, in the House of Commons large parts of the Bill have been re-written and expanded and a number of further amendments have been promised by the Home Secretary for introduction in this House.
Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a long report making a number of criticisms of the Bill on the grounds of human rights, and in particular in relation to the treatment of children. The House of Lords Select Committee on the
Constitution has drawn attention to what it regards as a major change to our country's constitution to which the House should give serious attention. If the Bill as it stands becomes law, for the first time the Secretary of State will be able to deprive a British-born citizen of his or her citizenship if he or she has another citizenship as well. That is no small matter.The Prime Minister has just returned from the European summit in Seville and has reported in a carefully spun way a number of impending changes to Europe's asylum arrangements, some of which are likely, directly or indirectly, to affect the Bill. He has agreed, as we heard earlier, contrary to the Government's stated intention, to go along with a European joint operation to police Europe's external borders, which presumably includes the United Kingdom's entire coastline, our ports and our airports, thus creating, without delay, harmonised border controls.
Will such impending harmonisation, along with other decisions taken at Seville, render parts of this Bill redundant or call for strengthening of some clauses or even new clauses? The truth of the matter is that in dealing with the Bill the House is aiming at a moving target. At the outset and in the original White Paper the Home Secretary said that we need a balanced approach. Of course, he is absolutely right.
The trouble is that the weights keep changing on each side of the scale. The balance involves so many people for whom the Bill is vital: those genuine and desperately seeking asylum under international law; those who seek a better life by emigrating legally or illegally to this country; and our own citizens, British born or naturalised, whose liberty and life chances Parliament exists to protect. We must never forget that.
If a proper balance is to be achieved, exceptionally careful and conscientious consideration will be demanded from all noble Lords on all sides of the House. From the speeches we have heard so far, the signs are that that will happen.
To save time in Committee, I should like to ask the Minister three questions at this stage: a general question on the Seville summit's effect on the Bill, and two questions about detailed provisions affecting Scotland. First, how do the Government see decisions in Seville broadly affecting the number of asylum seekers and aspiring immigrants—legal and illegal—who have to be dealt with in this country in the short and long term? The Prime Minister must have taken that issue into consideration in all his contributions to the debate in Seville. He must have had expectations which perhaps the Minister will give us.
Anticipated numbers are critical in considering many parts of the Bill: accommodation centres; the speed of processing; the follow up of refusals and so on. The Prime Minister was unable to persuade his colleagues that the European Union should withhold aid from countries that fail to co-operate in returning whence they came those found to be illegal immigrants and those who fail to be accepted as asylum seekers. Since our problems with illegal entry from France have
not been catered for at Seville, is there likely to be an agreement soon with France, and if so, how soon? What will be the Seville summit's effects on the broad numbers to be catered for by the Bill? That is relevant and important.Secondly, I ask about Clauses 126 and 127, which are the only clauses that do not apply to Scotland. I appreciate that they create a new offence for trafficking in prostitution and that, unlike the rest of the Bill, they are technically not concerned with matters reserved for Westminster. But the international promotion of prostitution in or from the UK is not going to stop south or north of the Scottish Border. People may be landed in Edinburgh with a view to their working in London, or landed in Hull with a view to working in Glasgow. If different legislation is enacted in the Scottish Parliament or already exists in Scottish law, or if the Scottish Parliament does not legislate at all, how will that affect Clauses 126 and 127? Has the Scottish Parliament ever considered the matter? I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that question, or if he would write to me. I realise that the issue is complicated, but it is important the House should get it right. It is a devolution matter and we must not make a mistake.
The third question is one of fact. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 deals with citizenship ceremonies, oaths and pledges. Paragraph 2 inserts into Schedule 5 to the British Nationality Act 1981 a requirement for aspiring United Kingdom citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to "Queen Elizabeth the Second". Scotland never had Elizabeth I as Queen. Therefore, the oath of allegiance in the United Kingdom Parliament in this House and another place is simply to Queen Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth II. That takes account of the facts of the United Kingdom.
I understand that an amendment was tabled in another place to bring the Bill into line, but it was not selected for discussion. The point has to be made by a Scots speaker. It is essential that the Bill be changed. Can I take it that the Government will table the necessary amendment? We should not take up the House's time with a long argument about whether the Queen is Elizabeth I or Elizabeth II. A slip-up has been made that should be corrected as soon as possible.
Much of the Bill is good. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that we must all imagine what it is like to be the Minister, who has to put into practice policies that will work in a country where the balance of all those concerned must be maintained. I am sympathetic, and I expect other noble Lords on this side of the House are too. But it is a moving target and there is much work to be done in this House. I look forward to the Committee stage.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I too must excuse myself for not being here later. Sadly, I am not dressed for a tug-of-war like my noble friend Lord Desai, but I shall be attending a long-arranged meeting to discuss violence against women.
I congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on changing in the White Paper the basis of immigration policy, founded on racist principles for the past 30 years or so, to one based on the UK's economic and social needs.
I fear that I cannot be so complimentary about some parts of the Bill or certain sections of the White Paper. I wish to begin by examining the damage that is done when asylum seekers are scapegoated, because it does not end there. Asylum seekers have become synonymous with illegal entrants, even though there is no legal route for entry. However, I applaud the Home Secretary's commitment to open up such a route. Illegal entrants in turn are regarded as back-door immigrants, and so the connection, however perverse, is made with those who have settled here lawfully for generations. I learn every week of British women and children who are attacked and told to "go back home".
Intolerance towards certain sections of the minority community has come full circle to the days of the "rivers of blood" speech. Even the most settled and longstanding British citizens are again feeling unsafe and unprotected by the state. Against that background, it was ill advised for the Home Secretary to allow into the White Paper the comment that the Government expect British citizens from ethnic minority communities increasingly to marry within the UK.
Unwise subsequent comments on the "isolationist behaviour" of certain communities feed the irrational frenzy of bigots and racists. They have rightly been met with understandable outrage from much of our community, which does not see the Home Secretary's responsibility as including telling members of one section of British society whom they should marry. It also demonstrates that even at the heart of the Government we allow the continued and unhelpful link to settled communities of the current issues of migration, immigration and nationality.
While I hear that such statements may have been an innocent forecasting of social trends, the impact of tying them with the plight of Asian women in Britain seriously undermines any good intention and directly gives out the unwelcoming message that they have never been accepted as part of society. That lack of sensitivity, in addition to the issues raised of citizenship, loyalty and language, is unwelcome in the context of nationality and immigration. Are we surprised that those messages are picked up in media attacks on asylum seekers and economic migrants, which many of us had hoped would be countered by firm leadership, direction and good example from the Government?
It has to be said: those who play with fire should not complain if they get burned. I must say to the Government that they should not tacitly expect the media to build up antipathy towards asylum seekers in order to deter them coming here and certainly should not be surprised at the impact on members of ethnic communities who have been British citizens for generations. We need leadership to state that such
attacks against asylum seekers are unacceptable not least because of their knock-on effects on the streets of inner cities.Secondly, together with a number of the national NGOs—the Immigration Advisory Service in particular—I am concerned at the proposal to deprive people of their British citizenship, which clearly impacts principally against those with dual citizenship. It cannot be implemented against those who would become stateless, many of whom are from ethnic communities. We do not know what "vital interests" mean. We are worried that on uncorroborated evidence of another country's intelligence services the Home Secretary could certify that the information should not be made public on grounds relating to matters of a political kind and that the appeal against deprivation should be heard in camera by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I note also that that has retrospective effect and will apply to existing British citizens. That will inevitably be seen as a threat to a certain section of the British community.
In that context, I am not convinced that the extension of the probationary period from one to two years for spouses is the right approach to deal with, in particular, sham marriages. Although many women's organisations have campaigned for this, I know that there are measures in place already to protect those who are abused. There may be police powers which could be used to deal with or to deport spouses where domestic violence has occurred. The Government have not explained their rationale or put forward any evidence of the nature of any supposed abuse. I think that we should know, for example, how many supposedly sham marriages have been reported under the 1999 Act by marriage registrars, and how many have been found to be proved.
I welcomed the abolition of the so-called and notorious primary purpose rule within a few weeks of the first Labour Government, as did many of us, in 1997. But surely the way to deal with alleged marriages—if they exist—is to examine the marriages at the time of application in greater detail.
I shall not comment on the Government's proposals to extend the working holidaymakers' scheme, as these appear in a separate consultation document and are not part of the Bill. But I hope that in the harmonisation of immigration policy, which is now central to the European Union, the Government will not allow any erosion of the special provisions which emanate from the historic links between the UK and Commonwealth countries. I seek some an assurance on that.
I now turn to the provisions in the Bill which have raised the greatest controversy. First, I wish to state that I do not believe that a policy of deterrence, which has as its consequence making life miserable for asylum seekers in this country, is either effective or humane. There are other ways in which we can make our procedures swifter and efficacious, such as those suggested to the Government by the Immigration Advisory Service. Those include an independent documentation centre on country of origin reports,
giving early access to legal advice and a fast track to acceptance of those whom the Government will not remove in any event; greater use of reporting rather than detention; and a planned, assisted departure programme for those who are not entitled to remain. The Home Secretary has rightly claimed that the system must enjoy the confidence of the public. One does not achieve that by seeking to exclude fairness and judicial scrutiny from the actions of the executive. I am also worried that we should not rush into legislation without considering the loss of confidence if measures fail.The proposal—inserted at the last moment in the Commons by the Government—to remove failed applicants before they can exercise a right of appeal is, I am advised, contrary to Article 32 of the UN convention relating to the status of refugees and, in any event, is likely to be unworkable in other than perhaps a few cases. Unless we have harmonisation across the European Union of the interpretation of the convention we shall not be able to return asylum seekers to countries which, for example, do not accept non-state agents of persecution. It is unlikely that any country will take back undocumented asylum seekers whom the Government allege have passed through their territory. Bearing in mind that a majority of asylum applicants in the UK are in the in-country with an existing immigration status, we should be told how many the Government think that will apply to. We know from the Home Office's own internal report on impediments to achieving its aims, the auditors VantagePoint advised scrapping Article 15 searches under the Dublin convention, which has already been discussed, on the basis that it applied to only 6 per cent of cases and the searches took some three months compared with the recommended one month. Are the new proposals another white elephant? I welcome the comments made earlier by my friend the Leader of the House that there may be a rethink on Dublin. I also welcome the moves towards a common policy agreed in Seville over the weekend as we need a strategic plan on these issues. That has been restated several times.
There is now widespread agreement that large-scale rural accommodation centres are not the best way forward. I share the view, not only of those 10 organisations who sent a letter from the Immigration Advisory Service to the Home Secretary but also others, including noble Lords who have made contributions, and the experience from other European countries that the need is for smaller units with access to mainstream facilities which, consequently, will not place an unbearable strain on them.
In such a short time, I cannot deal with many of the complexities such as language, the rights of children and the issue of citizenship, which require a great deal of attention. I shall just make a few more comments dealing broadly with the legal issues. First, although they should never have been introduced in the first place, I am delighted that the fees, which so marred the excellent initiative of the Government to bring in family visit appeals, have now been dropped from the Bill for ever. Already we have seen an increase in the
number of family visit fast appeals, which were inhibited while the fees remained. It is sensible for judicial scrutiny, wherever possible, to be by adjudicators who are experts in immigration and asylum law. That is why I hope that, for example, centre manager decisions to exclude asylum seekers from accommodation centres can be appealed to adjudicators rather than on judicial review. That principle applies more widely in other parts of the Bill.I cannot see how in Clause 89 the move to a review by a single judge on written representations only as against judicial review is a step forward. Will the Minister confirm that some two-thirds of all judicial review cases are successful and that, although many applications for judicial review are presently refused, very many are successfully admitted on renewed oral applications? If the single judge is unable to have the benefit of counsel arguing the case, is he or she not likely to give permission for judicial review in any event giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant?
Perhaps I may conclude on a note on which I hope that the whole House will unite, including the Government. I should like to think that we could unite on implementing routine bail applications which the Government introduced in the 1999 Act but never implemented. I understand why Ministers state that these provisions would be administratively inconvenient—especially with an increased detention estate—but I do not see how the advice then tendered to the Government as to the need for such provisions in order to comply with the Human Rights Act has changed in the interim period. Surely, if anything, the need for routine external judicial scrutiny of decisions to detain is greater rather than less in such circumstances.
Even if I cannot persuade the Government on that issue, I hope at least to succeed on another fundamental issue that falls under Part III of the 1999 Act: namely, the presumption of liberty. That point has been reiterated by several speakers. I hope that my noble friend will rise in his place now to assure me that the Government will at least preserve that essential and inoffensive provision which does no more than afford to immigration detainees who are alleged to have committed no crime the safeguards afforded to criminals under the Bail Act 1976.
Although it has had a controversial start, with goodwill from all parts of the House the Bill can be so improved as to be seen to be a major step forward in nationality, immigration and asylum provision. Perhaps we can become some sort of role model for the rest of the world to follow, which is the hope of us all.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my contribution to this debate is to draw attention to the concerns expressed by the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, of which I am privileged to be a member, about the human rights implications of this controversial Bill. Our substantial concerns were expressed in the report published on Friday. I am glad
to be speaking while the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is in her place, she being an important member of our committee.In a real sense, the committee has become Parliament's legal adviser on human rights. Our report is unanimous and transcends partisan party politics. Indeed, the chair of the committee is Jean Corston MP, who is also chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. We hope that our report will result in significant improvements to the Bill during its passage, with the active co-operation of the Home Office. At the end of our report, we append a Home Office memorandum and submissions by non-governmental organisations reporting from the front line, as it were. I hope that my summary of the report will not be regarded as a substitute for reading the whole of it.
We observe at the outset of the report that,
- "the way a state treats powerless and vulnerable people is an important indicator of the vitality of its human rights culture . . . Immigrants and asylum-seekers, lacking a political base in the United Kingdom, are particularly at risk of having their dignity and rights undervalued in the legislative process and subsequent administrative action".
- "made it impossible for us to report on the Bill in time for our conclusions to be useful to the House of Commons".
- "In future, if a Department cannot meet the deadline for replying to our questions",
- "especially one which is programmed in the House of Commons, the Government's business managers should ensure that the Bill's timetable is set to give time for the Committee to Report".
I gave notice to the Minister that I would raise the committee's concerns during this debate. We hope that he will be able to tell the House that the Government will respond positively to that point, as well as to our other human rights concerns. I bear in mind that the Minister has personally signed the Section 19 statement under the Human Rights Act 1998 that, in his view, he considers the provisions of the Bill to be compatible with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Currently, the Home Secretary is empowered to deprive of British citizenship only those who became British citizens by registration or naturalisation. There is at present no power to deprive a British citizen born in this country of the citizenship that is his or her birthright. Clause 4, which applies to all British citizens, would empower the Home Secretary to deprive any British citizen, including one born here, of citizenship if the Home Secretary was satisfied that the person,
- "has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of . . . the United Kingdom, or . . . a British overseas territory",
At paragraph 26, the committee draws attention to the serious consequences of depriving our fellow citizens of their citizenship. Those adverse consequences include,
- "loss of the right to a United Kingdom passport, which may affect people's ability to travel, especially if the other State of which a person is a citizen were to deny a passport to the person for political reasons. Inability to obtain a passport could make a person's alternative nationality little more than an empty shell. In addition, deprivation of British citizenship would entail loss of British diplomatic protection; loss of status; loss of the ability to participate in the democratic process in the United Kingdom; and serious damage to reputation and dignity".
The Home Office points out that the real threat to human rights from that draconian power springs from subsequent decisions taken as part of immigration control, where there would be adequate opportunity to ensure that effect was given to convention rights. Certainly, the expatriation and banishment that could result from the exercise of this power is the most serious detriment—in effect a punishment that would be inflicted even though the person stripped of British citizenship had not been found guilty of any crime. Such a punishment for no established crime is surely offensive to cardinal principles for which our constitution stands, and on which the Constitution Committee has separately reported.
But the Joint Committee on Human Rights is also concerned about the wider consequences of loss of British citizenship. The Home Secretary is rightly concerned to promote a concept of equal citizenship and shared democratic values based upon allegiance to this country. That is a vital objective of public policy if we are to succeed in creating a plural and tolerant society. But the positive value and worth of British citizenship will be diminished if it can be so easily removed by a subjective ministerial decision without even an obligation for the Home Secretary to show that he has reasonable grounds for doing so.
I remind your Lordships that in 1968, a previous government gravely damaged British citizenship by removing the right to enter and live in this country from 200,000 British passport holders on racial grounds. I declare an interest as counsel who went to Strasbourg to have that held to be inherently degrading.
In paragraphs 29 and 30, we explain our reasons for disagreeing with the Home Office's argument as to why it is appropriate to dispense with any requirement for objective, reasonable grounds and why existing legal principles would not afford an adequate remedy against the abuse of that power. We hope that the House—and, indeed, the Home Secretary—will accept our conclusion that,
- "it is a far more effective guarantee against arbitrariness, and a better way of assuring good administrative decision-making (as well as being far more compatible with the rule of law which underpins human rights), to require public authorities to justify the deprivation of a person's status to a standard of reasonableness, than to require the person subject to the decision to establish that it is wholly unreasonable".
Next, we deal with the arrangements for making residents of asylum centres aware of their legal rights and for providing effective access to timely legal advice to those in asylum and removal centres. We deal with that important subject in paragraphs 43, 44 and 87 of the report, where we state that we would expect the Home Office to be able to inform Parliament,
- "of the steps which would be taken, in all accommodation centres, actively to discharge the responsibility to inform people of their rights and of the accessibility of appropriate legal advice".
In paragraphs 46 to 62, we criticise the Government's reluctance to undertake to take positive steps to secure the rights of children in accommodation centres under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They include the right to be free from discrimination; the right to have their best interests treated as a primary consideration; the right to education on a non-discriminatory basis; and the right to participate in attention to some of those aspects.
We also draw attention, in paragraphs 66 to 74, to the right of destitute asylum seekers or their dependants, who have been required to leave accommodation centres without fault on their part, to a standard of accommodation and other support that is adequate to their needs. In paragraph 68, we refer to the extent to which the National Asylum Support Service can be relied upon to provide adequate support to asylum seekers in the community. We express concern at evidence of serious shortcomings in the ability of NASS to cope with the demands of assisting the asylum seekers dispersed around the country, a problem compounded by its inaccessibility to supported asylum seekers and their families.
In paragraph 76, we criticise the lack of clarity in the definition of the Home Secretary's powers to make regulations allowing assumptions to be made about a person's means when deciding whether he or she, or a dependant, is destitute. We draw attention to the need for careful parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under the Bill to withdraw the support-only option for assisting asylum seekers.
In paragraphs 78 to 79, we criticise the Government's reluctance to recognise the absolute nature of the obligation to avoid treating people in ways that amount to degrading treatment and are in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention. The Government's approach makes it sound as though it is a matter of administrative discretion, whereas the United Kingdom's duties under Article 3 are absolute, as every human rights lawyer or first-year law student ought to know. It is a matter of entitlement, not of discretion, and we hope that the Minister will accept that that is so.
In paragraph 80, we refer to the lack of flexibility and sensitivity to a person's circumstances in the proposal to limit the level of non-accommodation support to asylum seekers to only 70 per cent of income support. That may be unfairly discriminatory. We expect the level of support to be sufficiently flexible to take account of cases in which asylum seekers are not receiving accommodation as well as other support.
In paragraph 84, we draw attention to the possible ambiguity of the condition for authorising detention of a person who is liable to removal. We recommend that, because of the importance of the right to liberty—
to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford so insistently and rightly drew attention—Clause 49 should be amended to limit the Home Secretary's powers to cases in which there are reasonable grounds for their use.We emphasise, in paragraphs 88 to 89, the need for the best interests of children to be treated as a primary consideration in decisions whether to remove members of the family of someone whose removal has been ordered and whether to detain children. We emphasise again and again—in paragraphs 98, 99, 101, 104 and 108—the need, when the Home Secretary makes a certificate depriving someone of a right of appeal, to ensure that the individual is not removed from the UK before having an effective opportunity to seek the assistance of the courts in enforcing convention rights. That point was also emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. In that context, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind what we wrote in paragraph 98 of our report. We concluded:
- "In our view, it should not be possible to remove a person before he or she has had the opportunity to challenge, before an independent and impartial tribunal, the Secretary of State's certificate asserting that the person's claim to have had a Convention right violated is clearly unfounded. Removing a person in such circumstances might sometimes give rise to a violation of ECHR Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy . . .). We draw this to the attention of each House".
I hope that noble Lords will find that summary useful, as the House proceeds to examine the Bill in detail. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not found it necessary to draw attention to so many serious issues affecting human rights in any of our previous reports. It is highly regrettable that, because of the inexcusable delay in the Home Office's reply to our questions, our report had to be published too late to inform the debates in the other place, so that detailed scrutiny can take place only in this House. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, rightly drew attention to that point in their criticism of the regrettable features of the Government's handling of the Bill in another place.
I hope that we may look forward to a positive response from the Minister on those concerns at the end of the debate and thereafter. We want him not simply to write to us but to deal with the points here and now and hereafter, so that we may know where we are. We have not been concerned with the many wider political and social aspects of the Bill, such as the right to bail issue, which we do not think, in itself, violates the European Convention. There are many other such issues, but we are concerned only with the human rights implications and with questions of legality.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page