---

Earl Russell: Before I deal in detail with the amendments, perhaps I may respond briefly to some of the Minister's initial comments. Before he accuses me of making a Second Reading speech, I should say that I did not have the privilege of making a Second Reading speech on the Bill because I thought that manners did not permit me to absent myself from my own farewell party. I need to explain why we believe that in some cases the Government are barking up the wrong tree and why we have put down our amendments.

I entirely took the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to Mr Michael Howard. No one can look at these amendments without remembering the 1996 Bill. The resemblance is extremely close. However, I think that this Bill is the worse one—partly because any bad policy continually followed gets worse as it goes on, and partly because if you want to make people think you are a Conservative you do not

17 Oct 2002 : Column 987

have to try so hard if you actually are one. So I would rather have had Mr Michael Howard's Bill before us than this one.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: The noble Earl referred to the 1996 Act. Does he recall that the provisions of that Act were to withdraw support from all in-country applicants—not, as provided in this Bill, only from those applicants who cannot give a good reason as to why they did not apply immediately after their arrival in the country?

5 p.m.

Earl Russell: The good reasons point I intend to be answering for most of the remainder of my speech. Mr Howard did allow benefits for those who claimed it at the ports. In Mr Howard's Russian roulette, there was at least one empty chamber in the revolver. By the time we are through with this Bill, under the provisions of the amendment, I wonder whether there will be any empty chambers in the revolver at all—and that doubt is a serious one.

The Minister expressed many doubts about why we get so many applicants. I think that he is wrong to concentrate on the gross numbers. Per capita is a much more accurate form of measurement and is the one genuinely used. Why, for example, the Netherlands get far more applicants per capita than we do is a serious question.

The Minister is obviously being selective in his data when he refers to our having the greatest number. During the Bosnian crisis, that honour fell very clearly to Germany as, for geographical reasons, it obviously must. One of the problems of applying the first safe country rule is that it places an appalling burden on any country that has a major refugee-producing crisis on its borders. There is a case for some sharing out.

There are other reasons for the large numbers involved. I was once taking part in a meeting outside this House with Diane Abbott from another place. She said:

"The reason why there are so many of us over here is that you were first over there".

There is some substance in that point. A great many of the countries concerned have in the past been part of the British Empire. They share with us a common language, which obviously makes a difference. They also share with us a common stop for airline routes. Heathrow prides itself on being the junction point in the network of the world's major airlines. That is clearly likely to attract applicants.

The Home Office expresses intense surprise—rather to my surprise—at the increase in the number of refugees world-wide since 1989. There are reasons for that which have nothing to do with the policy of this country. It is, incidentally, a world-wide phenomenon by which this country is little affected.

One reason is the ending of the Cold War, which, as one sees in the Middle East, provided the world with a

17 Oct 2002 : Column 988

sort of policing system—I stress the words "a sort of"—which is not now available. Another, more important reason is the loss by the state of the monopoly of armed force—as we see clearly in places ranging from Angola to Northern Ireland. So there are a number of good reasons for the increase in the numbers of applicants which have nothing to do with the policy of any British government and cannot be changed or deterred by any change in British government policy.

That is the major reason why attempting to deter refugees from coming to this country by making their life here more unattractive is attempting to do the impossible. They can get more and more savage, and they will still not achieve their purpose; so they will think that they have to get more savage still. But they are attempting to do the impossible. Until they understand that, we shall not begin to get anywhere.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 3A standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, provides for assistance to families with children and to those with special needs. We welcome the amendment so far as it goes. But it is, as I think the noble Baroness will admit, a crumb from the rich man's table. I have never understood how children can be adequately provided for while their parents have nothing. The mere sight of his or her parents starving is itself a severe infliction on the child. I simply do not understand it. As regards the guidelines, we have no objection.

Amendments Nos. 3C and 3D, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, go some way to meet the points made in the important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which I warmly welcome. They are designed to ensure that no one should be left absolutely destitute. They allow some of the deprivations that are introduced, but not all. If I may put it this way, they allow the Minister to take away the main course but insist on his still allowing the soup. It is not much, but small mercies occasionally do matter.

Amendment No. 3F by both Opposition parties. It would change "believes" in subsection 6(a) of the proposed new clause to "has reason to believe". There are many things that the Secretary of State believes which he has absolutely no reason to believe. For example, he believes—the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, repeated that belief in out debates last week—that people are attracted here by generous welfare benefits. By European standards, as Eurostat confirms, our welfare benefits are not generous. Secondly, the Home Office's own research, published only two weeks ago, indicates that welfare benefits are not among the important influences when refugees decide where to go. So if the Home Secretary believes that, he has no reason to believe it. Once one introduces the idea of reason, one introduces also the possibility of judicial review. That is an important safeguard and we are concerned about it.

Amendment No. 3J deals with a Henry VIII provision. It deals with alternative sources of support

17 Oct 2002 : Column 989

which are blocked off. The proposed new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to,

"add, remove or amend an entry in the list",

of authorities and sources that may not provide support. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to remove names from the list of those authorities that may not provide support, but not to add to it.

In including this paragraph, the Government probably had in mind the Collins judgment which followed the 1996 legislation and which ruled that asylum seekers were entitled to support under the National Assistance Act, which the Government had forgotten to include in the repeals schedule.

It reminds me of the sad story of Mr Jones, whose wife died, was taken to the undertakers and was put in a coffin. They carried the coffin down the hill, turned the corner into the churchyard and bumped into the church gate. A scrabbling noise was heard from the coffin. They found that Mrs Jones was alive. She lived another 20 years. When she died, she was taken to the undertakers, they put her in a coffin, the funeral procession began and the coffin was carried down the hill. As they turned the corner to enter the church gate, Mr Jones said, "Be careful not to bump against the corner"! The inclusion of this provision is a case of the Government "being careful not to bump against the corner". I would rather like to find Mrs Jones alive in the coffin.

I turn to the main amendment—which we on these Benches do not welcome. The question was raised of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with inhuman or degrading treatment. I know that counsel for the Human Rights Committee takes this seriously. I have corresponded with him on the matter. Perhaps the Minister can clarify a point that he made. He said that if people were reduced to "such a degree" of destitution that Article 3 was involved, the Government would take action. The concept of degrees of destitution interests me. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain which degrees of destitution he thinks fall within the provisions of Article 3 and which do not. I am puzzled.

I believe that the Government have got "rights" and "responsibilities" back to front. There is a right to life. Since, on the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during the passage of the Human Rights Act, we finally abolished the death penalty, we treat that right as absolute. That right, in return, creates a responsibility on the Government to provide the conditions that sustain life. If any asylum seeker were allowed to die of starvation, I wonder whether that would involve Article 2 of the ECHR as well as Article 3.

I turn to the use of the words "as soon as reasonably practicable". The Minister may remember the case of ex parte B in 1996. It was the case that caused this House to legislate again on the circumstances in which benefits may be removed. "B", who came from Zaire,

17 Oct 2002 : Column 990

had naturally not been able to keep up with reports in the English press. When she arrived in this country on Eurostar, she walked all the way to Lunar House, in Croydon, to claim benefit, not having discovered from the Zaire press that she had to claim at the port or not at all. I do not see by what means it is made clear to applicants in refugee producing countries which do not have a free press exactly where or how they make a claim. They may lack the information to do it at the earliest practicable moment

In addition, it is a commonplace that the victims of torture—as is well known to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture—often find it extremely difficult to tell their story. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has ever had the experience of dealing with a rape victim while that person is still in a state of shock. I have had that experience three times. I really do not know why people think that academics live in ivory towers. It is extremely difficult to persuade such people to tell their stories. The insistence that asylum seekers should do so immediately is not only impossible, but also inhuman. If the Secretary of State thinks otherwise, I believe him to be both ignorant and grossly destitute of imagination.

---