| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I welcome his offer of consultation with Members from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the proposals and their implementation in terms of the advisory group. It seems that there will be quite a variety of changes—user panels, expert panels and goodness knows what. I certainly welcome the Minister's remark that the consultation should take place "relatively soon".
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Hylton, and Lord Avebury, for their support on this matter. I was struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He made the point that the situation changes rapidly in these countries and that the biannual report—the six-monthly change in the assessment—is not realistic. It does not catch up with the real world and the real situation faced by people who believe that they have to leave their countries and come here. That point must be strongly borne in mind in terms of the tests as to whether the Government's
proposals and their implementation will properly meet the needs of the system. At the moment, I have the residual feeling that the Minister's helpful description of the current system and of how the Government might try to adapt it to make it slightly better, might be like Emmental cheese. It might be a case of trying to stuff up the holes rather than churning a completely new cheese which might be more acceptable—I do not want to be rude to those who make Emmental, although it is not one of my favourites.Although I welcome the Minister's remarks and look forward to consultation, we shall look carefully at those proposals to make sure that they meet all our concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 37 [Asylum-seeker: form of support]:
Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 139:
- Page 19, line 23, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: This modest amendment attempts to improve the Bill across the board. During earlier discussions in Committee there was universal agreement from all sides of the Chamber on the importance of independent legal advice for securing high quality first decisions in asylum cases. I ask the Government, therefore, to understand the situation of people claiming refugee status who have been dispersed to towns well outside London and the South-East where experienced asylum and immigration advisers are few or non-existent. The same may also apply to residents of future accommodation centres. Such people may have to travel long distances to secure the advice they need. They are likely to be dependent on less than 100 per cent income support and may have great difficulty in finding their own travel expenses. We know that there are some 76,000 applicants already supported by NASS.
Secondly, there will be others who have spent more than six months in this country and who may have succeeded in obtaining low-paid work. They, too, especially if they are supporting dependants, may have difficulty in affording to travel perhaps from Lancashire or north-east England to London.
The purpose of this modest amendment is to make it possible, although not mandatory, for the Secretary of State to reimburse genuine travel expenses. The Committee will appreciate that in almost all cases it will be much cheaper for the applicant to travel to the adviser rather than vice versa.
I table the amendment in the interests of getting good quality first decisions and proper advice on appeals. This is in the interest of fairness, justice and the proper discharge of this country's international obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: I support the amendment. I understand that it applies to asylum seekers
That occurs legitimately when people are housed in one area and, for good reasons, are moved to another place perhaps through circumstances relating to their community. That has occurred to my knowledge in the past two years. A person living in Lancashire may have a solicitor in London who is providing good advice which he does not want to lose. He may have a good legal adviser in Manchester but, for whatever reason, that person moves to Nottingham or Birmingham. There is no doubt that that causes difficulties.
Lord Filkin: I understand the concerns of the noble Lord in proposing the amendment. For reasons I shall explain the Government believe that it is not necessary.
In England and Wales the Legal Services Commission already provides a means for an asylum seeker who is eligible for legal aid to obtain help with the cost of travel to obtain legal advice. The solicitor who is handling the case is able to obtain reimbursement for the cost of the asylum seeker's travel to the solicitor for the purpose of instructing the solicitor. He may also be reimbursed by the commission for his own travel costs if it is necessary for him to travel to see an asylum seeker in connection with an asylum claim. In Scotland, that is not the case, but solicitors may be reimbursed if it is necessary for them to travel to see an asylum seeker. Legal aid in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it would be inappropriate to place additional burdens on Scottish Ministers without proper consultation.
This is the best way of ensuring that, where necessary, such costs are met. It avoids the difficulties of obliging asylum seekers to apply to the Home Office for a ticket in advance or for reimbursement afterwards and thereby risking inconvenience, or worse, if they have to wait longer than they had expected for their request to be dealt with. In the light of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The point about Scotland is well made and well taken. However, if the Minister were to approach my right honourable friend Mr Wallace, who is Minister for Justice in Scotland, he might find that the procedure by Sewel Motion, which has been used before, was not altogether beyond my right honourable friend's imagination. The fact that the matter requires independent action by the Scottish Parliament does not prove that the Scottish Parliament might not be prepared—if suitably approached—to undertake such action on its own behalf.
According to information reaching the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Council and many other concerned people, the fact that the Legal Services Commission has the power to meet such
The Minister has not yet taken on board the importance of the problem of initial decision making. There are, for example, demands for inappropriate standards of proof. There are particular problems with that in cases relating to claims of torture. The medical evidence is heard, and then it is decided that it does not provide proof that the injuries were inflicted by torture. It is of the nature of medical evidence that it can describe injuries but cannot prove who inflicted them or from what motive they were inflicted. That is an inappropriate standard of proof. The presence of a competent lawyer early on could put it right.
I recall accompanying the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on a deputation to the Home Office about the case of somebody who had scars that had been inflicted by heavy beating. The Home Office insisted that the wounds were self-inflicted. The scars were on his back.
If lawyers were present at an earlier stage, we could save a great deal of the Home Office's time and everyone else's by getting such matters settled earlier. I beg the Minister—if he cannot direct the Legal Services Commission—to set up another fund, independent of the commission, with the collaboration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, after all, lives not far from here. The Minister can go and talk to him. One way or another, it must be done, or the whole thing will remain as much of a mess as it has been all the time that I have been associated with it.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Earl for his comments. I am fully seized of the importance of getting initial decision making of the highest possible quality. That was made clear in our discussions yesterday. I see the relevance of the points made to that objective.
Between now and Report, I will discuss the issue with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As for Mr Wallace, I enjoyed working with him recently in Luxembourg. I am reluctant, for obvious reasons, to infringe on the role of the Scottish Parliament, but I shall ensure that he is aware of the debate and the issues.
Lord Avebury: When the Minister has discussions with the Lord Chancellor, will he also put it to him that it is equally necessary for people to have access to competent medical and other advice, as well as legal advice? I do not know whether the Legal Services Commission is empowered in cases of torture or alleged torture, such as my noble friend Lord Russell
"( ) In section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33), for "other than legal expenses or" there is substituted "including any travel expenses incurred to obtain legal advice, but not"."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page