Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the 10th child of my mother and father, perhaps I may say that each child has its own value. If my parents had given up, I would not be standing before noble Lords today.

We have not undervalued that aspect. We will look very carefully at any statutory change that may be needed to implement the five-year strategy. But it is a strategy; it is our way forward. Some issues will require new legislation. I assure noble Lords that any changes to the appeals structure—not that I am aware that any current changes are anticipated—as with all changes, would have to come back before this House, any new construct would be looked at and it would be properly debated. I cannot tell noble Lords that any change is contemplated but this is a five-year strategy.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I apologise to the House, particularly to the noble Baroness for having misled her. I took the advice of the Clerk and was told that the limit was 20 minutes. But the Companion is ambivalent; it says that the Minister may go on to answer questions, if necessary, afterwards. However, perhaps I may suggest that noble Lords on the two Front Benches should be a little more economical with
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 584
 
the number of questions that they ask. I fear that if the noble Baroness had had to answer all their questions we would have been standing here until midnight.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for her gracious apology. I also thank her because her intervention meant that I was not able to weary the House with the answer to each and every question, which of course I would have been delighted to do.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that we need to operate within the limits set out by the qualification directive of the European Council and of the Hague programme, on which Caroline Flint, her colleague in the Home Office, answered questions only a couple of weeks ago? Bearing that in mind, do any of the proposals require us to seek a variation or amendment of the qualification directive or the Hague programme, or is everything that the Minister said today within the limits of what the Government have already done? On a quick reading, it looked as though the report was simply a summary of measures taken by the Government over the past few years and not an announcement of anything new, but I am open to correction if that is wrong.

The last item in a series of points that have been recapitulated by the Government in this document was what happens to people who destroy their documents on or before arrival. Since that provision came into effect, has there been any significant reduction in the number of people arriving without documents? Has the threat of prosecution been effective in deterring that practice?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are very enthusiastic supporters of the Hague programme, which has very much honed the programme for the European Union regarding what we will seek to develop together. The contents of this five-year programme complement very well that which we are going to do. The five-year strategy is not simply a recitation of what has already been done. In the proposed changes, noble Lords will see many new things, such as the points system, the advisory group, the ability to monitor the flows of migration, the issues of the skills base, what we need and how we can amplify that.

Nothing in the strategy will result in changes to asylum appeals. We have said that we will remove student and work entry clearance appeals and appeals against refusal at ports under these routes. But those do not impinge on asylum issues. I have already said that the qualification directive and the Hague programme are consistent. So we have the points system, the chain of migration, the end of appeals, the English language test, the programmes in relation to skilled workers and the fixed-penalty fines. There are new issues in that strategy.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that with about 200,000 people a
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 585
 
year leaving this city for other parts of the country or to move abroad migrants with the necessary skills are needed to keep this capital working? On the matter of the single tier of appeal, will she confirm that there is no such thing as 100 per cent success with initial appeals? Perhaps I may ask her to think again about removing the right to at least one appeal for those who are refused leave to enter for work or study.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have looked at that issue very carefully. Of course, if legislation is brought forward there will be an opportunity for us to debate it. But our hope and aspiration is to make the procedure clear and understandable by all, so that those who are entitled to have those permissions given to them will get them. On that basis, if the procedure is simple, clear and straightforward, we hope that there will be no need for appeals.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suspect that I am speaking for the whole House when I say that if all of the noble Baroness's nine siblings are or were in this country, it is or would be a better place. How can it be that after eight years of this Government they are able now to announce electronic control methods for our ports for exit and entry? The Minister will be aware that I have asked many questions over the years on that subject.

I would suggest that the Home Office is guilty of incompetence and that the Government are guilty of negligence in allowing the Home Office to be incompetent. Will the noble Baroness also kindly answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Anelay: if the new methods are merely to be introduced in some ports, what is there to stop those who wish to avoid them from using the other ports?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord and your Lordships will know that those things take time. Perhaps I may thank him for his very kind comments about myself and my family. There are in fact 12 of us—I was just the 10th child.

As your Lordships will know, the previous Government changed the rules in relation to embarkation countries, recognising that they were expensive and insufficient. We estimated that we could not simply return those. It has taken time to put in place the e-border initiative. We want to make sure that it works well. This will be an opportunity for us to consolidate the position so that we know how many people are leaving and how many are coming in in a way that we have not been able to do before.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right. This is not just a UK initiative; it is very much something that is happening in the EU, which is also an important development. There has not been incompetence, but it has taken time. We celebrate the fact that we are now able to take advantage of it.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, do the Government accept that asylum policy as opposed to immigration policy should be centred on the needs of
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 586
 
the seekers for asylum, regardless of the benefits that they bring to this country? The most in need are often the ones who will be less able to produce a benefit for this country and who will need our compassion and our help.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. There is a difference between those who seek asylum because they are subjected to persecution and threats of death and those who wish to come to our country as economic migrants to better their life chances. One of the difficulties has been that in the past, many people have conflated those two issues.

In the strategy, we wish to make clear that there are legitimate ways of coming to this country through a well honed, well targeted points system. People do not have to cloak themselves in a myth of being an asylum seeker in order safely to reach these shores. We hope that we will deny the people traffickers their vile produce as a result of the suffering that they produce.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, it is a very important paper. I share the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. To a great extent, the importance of this paper will lie in how it affects the lives of the most vulnerable people who will have very few other options, unlike most of the professional classes.

I am concerned that, in the Statement, the noble Baroness said that genuine refugees will be granted temporary status once their asylum claims have been granted, but that the situation in their home countries will be kept under review. If there is significant improvement, they will be expected to return.

My question is related to an example. This is a very subjective test in international political terms. For example, in Iran in the 1990s, there was significant improvement, although its previous human rights record had been appalling. There was significant improvement under President Khatami who will be leaving office in three months' time. We expect there to be a reversion to hard-line governance again. An asylum seeker who came to this country and was reviewed under what I think these proposals mean could have been repatriated to Iran only to discover that it had gone full circle.

Can the Minister reassure us that in developing the strategy, the monitoring of international situations to determine whether they have improved could be taken over a longer period than 10 years or, if not, at the very minimum they will be reviewed extremely rigorously and with great care?


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page