| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: I, too, welcome both the Minister's amendment and the speech which he made in putting it before us. It reassured me on a number of points about which I had previously been in a little doubt. I also express my agreement with the vast majority of what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said and express approval of her Amendment No. 109.
The idea that hearings should take place at the centres, or as near as is convenient to them, is important. Incidentally, it will save the Minister from a long string of questions from my noble friend Lord Greaves about the timing of the earliest trains from Preston to London. Some of the early hearings conducted by NASS were something of a dog's breakfast. Indeed, they were appropriately timed before the earliest train that would enable the asylum seeker to get there so that he would end up spending the night sleeping on Euston Station. I believe that the amendment will get us away from that situation.
I take the noble Lord's point about the independence of the judiciary. It explains a number of points which I should have spotted were due to that but where the amendment is not particularly specific, clearly because it is not within the noble Lord's authority to make it so.
I take his point with regard to flexibility; that is, that where there is an appropriate building next door, it is absurd to insist on a purpose-built building to avoid a walk of a couple of hundred yards. On the other hand, I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It is a different matter when one is dealing with families with children, but without the language, who must take bus journeys of 20 or 30 miles or perhaps half-way across a county, probably run under rather erratic and infrequent services. This will clearly be a matter of horses for courses. One cannot account for that type of situation in the drafting of general primary legislation; nor, indeed, I suspect, in the drafting of general secondary legislation. It will be a matter for consultation and for reasonableness, and I welcome the Minister's commitment to undertake to do that.
However, from our point of view, one vitally important element is still missing from the amendment. It does not lay on the Secretary of State any duty to make legal advice available at the centre. The Secretary of State "may" arrange for,
- "the provision of facilities at an accommodation centre for the taking of steps in connection with the determination of claims for asylum".
Throughout, the Government have been concerned about speed, and I understand why. I have heard of cases of asylum seekers who have waited for a decision on their application for as long as 10 years. I shall not soon forget hearing Lord Taylor of Gosforth very shortly before he died describing the time-consuming character of listening to a litigant in person. Therefore, in terms of speed there are advantages in legal advice being available on site.
There are also advantages in terms of reasonableness, fairness and a level playing field between the Home Office and the applicant. The Home Secretary occasionally sounds as though he has a problem with what he describes as "ingenious" lawyers. One does not always feel certain that the adjective is intended as praise. Perhaps I may offer him a quotation from Mr Justice Megarry:
- "As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change".
The earlier in the process that those matters are cleared up, the more quickly and more fairly the issue can be resolved. I believe that that is in the interest of both the Home Office and the applicant. It has been our opinion throughout that the major cause of delay in the asylum system is the poor quality of the initial decision-making: the insistence on an appropriate standard of proof; inaccurate information on the country concerned; or, occasionally, simply insufficient attention to the evidence provided.
All that can be put right more quickly if the applicant has access to legal advice at the earliest possible moment. That is most likely to produce a quick decision and a fair one. That is a point to which we on these Benches must return. However, with that single reservation, I welcome the Minister's amendment, I thank him for it and I am happy to accept it.
Baroness Whitaker: I rise in support of Amendment No. 97, but, following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I simply want to ask my noble friend whether he will clarify one point. Incidentally, I apologise to my noble friend for having just missed the beginning of his introduction, but I am advised that he did not mention this point. Will he clarify that the legal advice which the Secretary of State may arrange for, if, indeed, that is what is meant in the amendment, should be independent? Will he also clarify that information should be made available to people in the accommodation centres as to what that advice should consist of and what their rights are?
The other document at which I am looking is the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where we made it clear that we believed that people in accommodation centres should have independent legal advice and also information about their rights and where the legal advice was. Therefore, I hope that that can be positively clarified in my noble friend's response.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps the Minister will answer one or two questions in his response. While I express our broad support for the amendment, the Minister talked about the provision for adjudicators and appeals. One area with which we are concerned is the relationship between the appeal mechanism and those who provide advice—in this instance, we are talking about bodies such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre. All those bodies which provide on-the-spot advice will have to travel substantial distances for this purpose.
Do the Government understand that in many cases they are hand-to-mouth organisations, which depend on a substantial amount of charitable funds and, in some cases, government grants? Do they intend to ensure that such organisations are appropriately grant-aided in order to function effectively? That would not only be in the interests of the individual but in the interests of justice.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: When we consider this government amendment we need to keep a sense of proportion. We must remember that something like 2 to 3 per cent of all existing and future asylum cases will relate to people accommodated in accommodation centres. That will be the situation up until at least 2006. If Members of the Committee wonder why I think that those are the correct proportions, I refer them to the helpful notes produced by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it will be just as important that the centres provide the highest quality first decisions. If we can achieve that high quality there will be fewer appeals and fewer cases referred for judicial review. Independent legal advice has been mentioned. I hope that the Government will reassure us that that will be fully provided and, in some cases, fully funded.
Another point arises from getting good quality first decisions; that is, the vital need for interpreters for those asylum seekers who do not have a command of English. As I may have said before, it will be important to ensure that the interpreters are capable of entering, in a sympathetic way, into the difficult situation which often faces an asylum seeker. I look forward to further government reassurance on at least two counts.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like all who have spoken, I welcome the Minister's proposals and the fact that it is now intended that adjudicators should be available at accommodation centres. Perhaps I may refer to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If one is to have early and fair adjudications, it is equally important that the asylum seeker should have the opportunity of having available to him independent legal advice. The noble Earl suggested that at present that is not fully covered by the Bill. If it is not—I rather thought it was—can the Minister assure the Committee that he will also consider that matter? It seems to me that the success of this part of the Bill will depend on the ability to provide a system which will allow for adjudication as quickly and fairly as possible and, as a result, will lead to as few appeals as possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some of the centres are likely to be in Scotland. Amendment No. 97 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, to which the amendment refers, explains that the Lord Chancellor will decide where and when adjudicators will sit. I have always understood that the Lord Chancellor's Writ does not run in Scotland. I wonder whether the amendment will need to be amended to take account of that fact or whether there will be a further amendment from the Government.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I join the general welcome given to the government amendments by Members of the Committee and underline the critical importance of early and easy access to legal advice. The Minister will be aware that a number of the voluntary organisations which have been involved at Oakington from the start of the process had and still have access to give both legal and expert advice to those who are there as part of the process of dealing with asylum applications.
After the first few months of the opening of that centre, the voluntary agencies concerned in offering such advice were comfortable with the fact that in a high percentage of cases—I cannot remember the exact figure; it may be that my noble friend has that to hand—the initial advice offered had been subsequently upheld in the appeals process. That is a
great tribute to the organisations involved at Oakington. It also raises another point, which is easy to overlook.As far as I am aware—perhaps my noble friend will confirm this—nowhere in that process are the Government concerned with the provision of legal advice to those seeking asylum. That is traditionally left either to independent lawyers or, indeed, to voluntary and charitable agencies which specialise in that field. It is not a matter for the Government. The only responsibility—I believe that is the best word—resting on the Government as part of that process is to provide suitable accommodation for those willing to provide such advice at the premises in which those seeking asylum are to be found.
That is an extremely important point. Surely, the whole of the Bill is concerned with making the process more sensible, fairer and faster. Everyone then knows exactly where they are from start to finish and are then given leave to remain; granted refugee status; or told that they cannot stay here and, where safe to do so, returned to their country. The provision of early advice, which is easily accessible at the start of the process and throughout, is critical. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that that has been a success where practised at Oakington.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page