| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his wholehearted support, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his slightly more conditional support. I recognise that the noble Viscount has had to learn the error of his ways over an earlier decade. I refer to the stance that he took with regard to betting shops in the 1990s—although it may not be "the error of his ways", because betting shops have improved immeasurably since that time. I imagine that not all are of a universally high standard. We can only quote as we see. My visit to a betting shop tends to be an annual one—on the day of the Grand National when I join the vast majority of my fellow citizens in a wager. I must say that my annual visit is always attended by an extraordinary improvement in the facilities for punters who use the betting shop with somewhat greater regularity. People get a great deal of innocent pleasure out of betting. Why should we not make the experience as comfortable and enjoyable for them as we can?
The noble Viscount is right to indicate that in some areas of the country—certainly in most parts of London—it may be extremely convenient to nip out for refreshment within easy reach elsewhere. But that may not be the case universally. There are some betting shops where punters do not have easy access to refreshment when they need it. Therefore, it is only right that we recognise that a diet largely restricted to crisps and chocolate can now be extended—with nothing but benefit for those who take advantage of the opportunity. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.21 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.21 p.m.]
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 117:
- Page 13, line 7, at end insert—
The noble Earl said: I begin with argument on Amendment No. 119 that touches on a point with which we have not dealt previously. Amendment No. 119 deals with expenses in connection with communications or meetings with a legal adviser. During discussions on the way the system works under the 1999 Act, we have heard constantly of people unable to communicate with their lawyer because they
Meetings are a nightmare for the client and the legal adviser. If you have been dispersed to, say, Preston and have to get to London it can be very expensive, as many of us know well. In order to have justice done, people need to be able to undertake reasonable expenses in order to meet and communicate with their legal advisers. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 119 and of a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss them together as we seek the same aim.
Amendment No. 117 provides for asylum seekers to have access to competent legal advice. I put forward my arguments on that issue on the first day. I shall not do so again. The Minister knows them perfectly well. In Amendment No. 121A he has responded generously. That amendment states that,
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am largely on the noble Earl's side. However, if "shall" is substituted for "may", the Secretary of State is obliged to enable the applicant to seek legal advice. I do not think that that is right. It is right that he should pause and think again about the issue.
Earl Russell: If someone has to return to a place every night and therefore cannot travel to London to meet a competent lawyer—by "competent" I mean someone competent in asylum law, which is not in all respects the same as immigration law—there must be a duty on the Secretary of State to allow them access to competent legal advice. If you impede them in that duty you deprive them of their legal right. You are preventing a level playing field in litigation and you may even be at risk of legal proceedings yourself. While I respect the noble Lord's point, I cannot bring myself to accept it.
Whatever we may say about the words "may" and "shall", I am deeply grateful for the remainder of the amendment, in particular for the speed with which the Minister responded to my remarks on the first day. For that I thank him very much indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish that the noble Earl had gone a little further. Advice in an accommodation centre is not sufficient. The person may seek advice on a rather abstruse point of law. It is not always practicable for the legal adviser to come to the accommodation centre. I see no reason why, in appropriate circumstances, the asylum seeker should not go to the chambers of the barrister or the office of the solicitor, which may not be coincidental with the accommodation centre. I accept the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the word "may", but I do not think in practice that there should be any permissive nature about the duty of the Secretary of State.
However, we should address ourselves to the possibility of a bogus point being taken by the asylum seeker. In that event, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to provide the asylum seeker with the facilities to seek advice. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill the Minister will respond favourably to the proposal. It is not revolutionary. It is a simple proposition. The Minister should reply affirmatively. In other words, where it is essential for the asylum seeker to be able to visit a competent legal adviser—and I take the point that the legal adviser has to be competent in this area of the law—the Secretary of State should be obliged to enable that asylum seeker to go to the chambers or office of a suitable and competent legal adviser.
It may be that the advice sought is outside the competence of the person first consulted. In that case, the Secretary of State should also be obliged to provide facilities to enable the asylum seeker to obtain legal advice. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but my noble friend the Minister has, in Amendment No. 121A, made a good attempt to meet the points that have been raised. However, in my respectful submission, it does not go far enough. I would like to return to the issue at a later stage, but I hope that my noble friend will agree in principle with the point that I have made.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is, of course, right that there may be points with which the adviser on the spot may not be able to deal. That was the purpose for which I put down Amendment No. 119, which would allow for the provision of expenses for travel to meet the legal adviser.
Bogus points have been put forward ever since Adam said, "Woman tempted me". The Secretary of State is not the best person to decide whether the point is bogus.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned my amendment, Amendment No. 139. It is not in this group, and I would like to move it separately. It goes wider than just what happens within accommodation centres.
Having said that, I warmly welcome Amendment No. 121A. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that, although the Government's amendment is a good effort, it does not go nearly far
I was glad to hear the Minister say, during our discussion of Amendment No. 116, that interpretation would be provided. That is a good start. However, unless there is adequate legal advice, as well as interpretation, we will not get the quality of first decisions about which I have gone on at some length at previous stages. Nor will we get the speed of process that all members of the Committee wish to see.
Lord Dubs: I welcome Amendment No. 121A. However, I wish it went it a bit further—in a different direction from that suggested by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
One of the strengths of the refugee world in Britain is that there are active and effective refugee community organisations that provide support to their members. Sometimes, they provide legal advice, but, more often, they provide broader advice and, above all, support to members of their community. It is well known that that support for newly arrived asylum seekers, which familiarises them with our language and culture, is invaluable in helping them to adjust to being here and to deal with their asylum claim. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 121A simply says, "in providing legal advice". If it said,
"( ) access to competent legal advice;"
"the Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
That meets the case exactly in all words save one. I thank the Minister warmly for doing so. The Minister will be in no doubt about the one word: it is "may". When the Minister has been so generous, I am sorry to say that that is not good enough. Providing access to competent legal advice has to be a duty on the Secretary of State. Were there to be any failure in that duty, it could turn out to be judicially reviewable. On these Benches, we do not divide in Committee, but I think I can promise the Minister that the word "may" will be the subject of an amendment on Report.
8.30 p.m.
"in providing legal and other advice and support",
I should be happy. Will my noble friend the Minister consider that for a later stage?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page