---

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee.

Clause 50 [International projects]:

The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 163:

Page 27, line 33, at end insert—

"( ) arrange or assist the settlement of refugees, including the disabled and vulnerable"

The noble Earl said: This amendment follows the short debate that we had with the Minister on 18th June when I asked, among other things, whether the Government intended to encourage new gateways for asylum seekers and, in particular, attract recognised refugees to the UK under the managed migration policy. I asked again during the Second Reading debate and I received a sympathetic letter from the Minister, dated 27th June. I am aware that the clause refers to refugees, albeit cursorily, in subsection (3)(a). However, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees believes, and I agree, that there needs to be a much clearer statement in the Bill.

I do not have the impression that the Government are really committed to the resettlement of refugees as an alternative, even though half the work has already been done for them by the United Nations. Refugees often include among them a high level of skills, and in many instances there are doctors, lawyers and those who have been targeted by a regime precisely because of their professional and sometimes political skills.

I am reassured by the Minister that such people can apply to embassies via the entry clearance officers as long as they meet the United Kingdom criteria—and I would emphasise, as long as there is personal security for them. They may now wish to apply under the skilled migrants' scheme. As the Minister states in his letter,

"increasing the number of avenues for legal migration to the UK may help to reduce the number of asylum applications".

That would surely have some effect on the illegal trafficking of asylum seekers through places like Sangatte. That point was well understood during the Committee stage in another place. It may be of interest to the Committee that in 2001 Australia received more than 6,000 refugees under UNHCR resettlements, Canada received 10,000, Norway received 1,200 and Sweden received more than 1,000 from countries such as Kenya, Turkey and Pakistan. We are proposing to accept only a few hundred, and not for some time.

I shall try not to take up much more of the Committee's time, but I was disappointed to hear that the UN scheme may take another three to five years to get off the ground. What is the justification for such a delay? What lessons do we still need to learn? We

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1049

remember from many years ago the resettlement of refugees under various programmes such as those in Indo-China.

I understand the Minister's arguments about the EU scheme and it is essential to encourage those larger countries that do not implement it already—notably France and Germany. At the same time, surely we could go ahead on our own.

As a second part to the amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to an under-used project of UNHCR known as the "10 or more plan". The aim of the scheme is to enable a minimum number of refugees who are physically disabled or who belong to a vulnerable group to be included in a special quota. The UNHCR's view is that 10 is a disappointingly low number, which should be expanded to offer a realistic prospect of protection for the large number of refugees who potentially could fall within that category.

Many of the refugees in that category may have been victims of torture or violence in addition to persecution, and again they will be among the most skilled professionals who have been targeted. They are excluded or made to suffer through no fault of their own even from those societies that claim to receive them as refugees.

Will the Minister consider the matter and give us some assurance that the scheme can be better utilised by the United Kingdom now or in the future? I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: I recall that during the hostilities and endless fighting that followed the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, a significant number of people were admitted to this country precisely because they were disabled and/or vulnerable, as referred to in the amendment. I believe that the scheme worked extremely well, and it could well be the precedent for future schemes. In that connection there may be scope both for temporary admission—for hospital treatment or specialist rehabilitation, for example—and for permanent admission for resettlement here. The Explanatory Notes to the clause state:

"Pilot projects have already been undertaken".

That is nice to know, but will the Minister tell us about those pilot projects? What kind were they and what result was achieved? Can useful lessons be learnt from them?

My noble friend the Earl of Sandwich mentioned the vexed question of Sangatte in France. I have raised the matter in correspondence and in Questions in your Lordships' House. It is most unsatisfactory, if only because it has led to a considerable number of deaths of people in transit through the Tunnel. It has also severely disrupted freight services, causing loss of employment in this country. I hope that the recent conversations between the Home Secretary and his counterpart in France will lead to significant improvements in the situation in the short term—not next year, or in five years time.

The amendment would open the way for future collaboration between this country and the UNHCR, which might, for example, be asked to identify in

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1050

France people who are genuine refugees in its opinion. Having carried out that exercise, the UNHCR could then find out who among them had close connections with the United Kingdom, whether those were personal connections through family and friends, or the community connection of belonging to a minority that is already well established in this country, and which is therefore capable of giving support and assistance. Genuine refugees with a good knowledge of English could be identified. Even among those who are not recognised by the UNHCR as genuine bona fide refugees, it might be possible to acknowledge those who are worthwhile migrants and whose work skills might find an outlet by meeting employment needs in this country. On all those grounds, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I should like the Minister to clarify the clause. Subsection (1) clearly sets out the range of projects in which the Government may participate. The Explanatory Notes state:

"Such projects may have as their aim, amongst others, the return of migrants both inside and outside of the United Kingdom to their country of origin by voluntary or compulsory means".

However, Clause 50(4) states:

"Subsection (1) does not . . . confer a power to remove a person from the United Kingdom".

What is the purpose of that subsection in relation to removing people to their country of origin?

Lord Filkin: I shall reply first to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about this clause, which in some ways went usefully over the ground of our short debate at Second Reading, which I thought was excellent.

We have set out our commitment to resettlement. In essence, it recognises that there is a certain happenstance at present as to who can make a case for asylum in Britain. It is driven more by geography—whether people can physically get here to make a claim; or—using words carefully—whether in some cases people have the financial means to pay a trafficker to help them to get here. Therefore, one is aware of the injustice for people, for example, in Central Africa whose need could arguably be significantly greater but there is presently no international process for recognising that need on any scale. All we did in the debate was to recognise that that is a serious issue. Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, also marked that in his speech at Lisbon. We reflected that we should be happier in a world, different from how it is now, which allowed more managed processes. All one is saying at this stage is that this is a small but important start to recognise that there ought to be alternative routes to recognise the need to resettle people who are in the greatest need. Whether that would reduce illegal migration, I am less certain. But even if it would not, that is not necessarily a reason for not doing it.

15 Jul 2002 : Column 1051

I was asked why such a provision is not on the face of the Bill. As I understand it, it is on the face of the Bill. Clause 50(1)(e) provides wide scope to participate in resettlement, including the provision of financial support to international organisations and financial or other assistance to individual beneficiaries of the resettlement scheme, which is why the provision is so placed.

It was asked why this particular time period was indicated. The UNHCR advised on a time-scale to ensure that the programme was properly set up of between three and five years. We do not have to keep to that time-scale if we feel that we can move more rapidly. Consultation is presently taking place on the setting up of the scheme. The aim would be for the scheme to be be in operation possibly towards the end of 2003—resources permitting, as ever.

We had tended to infer that the amendment focused more on the issue of disability and vulnerability, because the first part of the clause effectively already contains the power to do what the amendment seeks. Clause 50 contains the legal basis for the funding of participation in the quota scheme—the details of which we are developing. It is not designed to set out the details of eligibility, but its wording is deliberately broad, referring to "migrants" rather than to "refugees", to enable us to assist the dependent family of a refugee if the members of that family are not refugees themselves.

I can also assure the Committee that the resettlement gateway will be humanitarian in its nature and will offer asylum in the UK to selected refugees whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental human rights cannot be protected in his or her country of asylum.

It is inevitable that some of the refugees may be disabled or may have been seriously traumatised by their experiences. I hope that most will be able to use the Ten or More Plan scheme which already provides resettlement for disabled refugees with medical needs. I note the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the extent to which this has been used. I do not have the answer at my fingertips but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter and any lessons that we have had from its operation to date that might inform the future development of that or similar schemes.

In operating the new quota scheme, it is likely that the UNHCR will first carry out a selection exercise and then pass on to the UK applications that are thought likely to meet our criteria. We have not yet determined what those criteria will be, but we shall not be discriminating against those with disabilities.

I hope that my response at least gives some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall reflect further on any other points that he or other Members of the Committee raised. In the meantime, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

---