HL Deb 27 July 1998 vol 592 cc1244-61

6.18 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on immigration and asylum.

"I am today publishing a White Paper entitled Fairer, faster and firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum. This follows a wide-ranging examination undertaken as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The White Paper sets out a new integrated strategy to deliver the Government's commitment to a fairer, faster and firmer system of immigration control.

"There are few more complex and sensitive responsibilities of government than this. But the system has been subject to piecemeal and ill-considered changes which have failed to tackle the real problems. Indeed the changes often made the problems worse. The arrangements for supporting asylum seekers are a shambles. Huge backlogs have been allowed to develop. Additional complexity and regulation have made the system unwieldy to operate. Despite the dedication and professionalism of immigration staff at all levels, genuine applicants have suffered, while abusive claimants and racketeers have exploited delays in the system. It is time for a new approach.

"The Government are determined to maintain firm control over immigration, but to do so in a way which meets our international obligations and reflects our commitment to strengthen human rights.

"The volume of passenger traffic arriving at our ports of entry has grown very fast in recent years—from 55 million arrivals in 1992–93 to 80 million in 1997–98—and is projected to reach nearly 100 million passengers in two years' time. We wish to welcome genuine visitors to our shores, and provide them and British citizens who travel abroad, with a fast and efficient service.

"Our immigration policy will continue to support family life by admitting the spouses and minor dependent children of those already settled in the United Kingdom. It must also sustain and promote race equality. It is particularly important for us to acknowledge the enormous contribution which immigrants and their descendants have made to our society in all walks of life.

"The Government have already begun to put in place a system which is fairer and more efficient. As promised in our manifesto, last June we abolished the primary purpose rule. But fairness is not well served by a system of decision-making which labours under huge backlogs and out-dated methods of working.

"The White Paper therefore sets out our plans for an integrated approach to the modernisation of immigration control. We are making organizational changes in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, backed by new technology, which will result in a new integrated casework directorate.

"We also intend to integrate the overseas entry clearance operation with the other elements of the control. A core feature of this new approach will be a single management structure, drawn from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, to manage the overseas operation. We will use new technology and more flexible legislation to the best advantage.

"Visitor appeals: many people resident in this country want their relatives to visit them for important family and other occasions. The previous government were wrong to remove the right of appeal to those refused a visit visa in such circumstances. It provided an element of independent oversight of what are bound to be very difficult and emotive decisions. Honouring our manifesto commitment, we therefore propose to introduce a streamlined right of appeal for those refused a visa to visit a family member in this country. We shall also be testing a financial bond scheme for visitors.

"Many problems and much confusion are caused by passengers arriving in the United Kingdom without required visas, or in some cases without any passport at all. We shall adopt a tough approach to deterring and preventing the arrival of inadequately documented passengers. One of the best ways of achieving this is through the use of airline liaison officers. We already have five officers placed overseas working with carriers and the relevant authorities to combat document and other frauds. We intend to increase this network to about 20 officers in total.

"Appeals: fundamental to our overall strategy is the need to speed up the system. There are too many avenues of appeal.

"In future there will be a single right of appeal for those lawfully present in the United Kingdom at the time of their application. We recently published a consultation document on this. The aim is to create an appeals system which will provide a fair opportunity to review decisions, but do so quickly, and to minimise the scope for manipulation of the system.

"Unscrupulous advisers: in our manifesto we said we would 'control unscrupulous immigration advisers'. As many honourable Members know from their constituency casework, there is a significant minority of such immigration advisers who abuse the system and exploit their clients. We have consulted widely about this and we will introduce a statutory scheme to regulate immigration advisers, which may include those who are legally qualified.

"Asylum: the United Kingdom has traditionally given shelter to those fleeing persecution from other parts of the world. We will continue scrupulously to observe our international obligations to protect genuine refugees. Those who are accepted as refugees or given exceptional leave to remain should be helped to integrate into local communities. To aid integration we will reduce to four years the qualifying period for settlement for asylum applicants granted exceptional leave to remain and give immediate settlement to those recognised as refugees.

"The numbers seeking asylum have increased eightfold in the last 10 years from 4,000 to 32,000. The reasons for that are many, including political instability, but there is no doubt that the asylum system is being abused. About three-quarters of asylum applications are refused outright because they do not meet the requirements for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. The vast majority of such failed applicants appeal, but only 6 per cent. of these appeals are successful. Of course a failed asylum application does not necessarily mean that the applicant has abused the system. But many claims for asylum are made by those seeking to migrate for purely economic reasons or as a means of prolonging a stay in the United Kingdom without legitimate reason.

"This places substantial pressure on a system which is already under severe strain. It is unfair to genuine refugees who have to wait long periods in the system for a decision on their claim to refugee status. At the end of May this year there was a backlog of 52,000 asylum applications on which not even an initial decision had been taken. Of these applications, 10,000 were over five years old. On the same date there was a backlog of 32,000 immigration appeals waiting to be heard, of which over 70 per cent. were asylum cases.

"Backlog: modernising the controls and simplifying and speeding up the procedures will help to tackle these problems but we cannot create the faster system without clearing existing backlogs. We are strengthening immigration control and there will be no amnesty either now or in the future for any applicant. We will instead allocate additional resources to deal with this inheritance. We will also adopt a practical approach in respect of the application backlog where an initial decision has been outstanding for some years, and ensure that the effect of long delays is properly taken into account, but in ways which will not outweigh other factors such as serious abuse.

"Speeding up initial decisions: the package of measures I am announcing today will ensure that new applications can be dealt with more quickly. As part of that process of strengthening our control I am announcing that from today the period allowed for asylum seekers to submit further representations after interview will be reduced from 28 to five days in port cases. It is already five days for in-country applicants. No one intent on exploiting the system should be under any illusion that these measures to clear the backlog will benefit them.

"We shall also be taking further enforcement measures to ensure that asylum seekers who are refused leave to enter or remain are returned quickly to their country of origin. We have previously undertaken special exercises to tackle sudden increases in applications, and we will not hesitate to do so again.

"All told we are aiming by 2001 for initial asylum decisions of two months and for appeals a further four months.

"We shall not hesitate to use detention where necessary to ensure the integrity of immigration control. We have, however, decided that detainees should be given written reasons for their detention and that subject to legislation there will be judicial oversight of the process.

"Support for asylum seekers: the current support arrangements for asylum seekers are a shambles. They are the product of ill-considered legislation which then required the intervention of the courts. The 1996 Act imposed a burden on local authority social services departments which was unplanned for, is inappropriate and cannot be allowed to continue. Action must be taken to contain costs and relieve the burden which has fallen heavily on London authorities in particular and more recently on the local authorities of Dover and Kent.

"In opposition I said that, in a civilised society, genuine asylum seekers could not be left destitute. I am honouring that commitment today. We need a system which reduces the incentive to economic migration and which recognises that what the genuine asylum seeker needs is food and shelter, not a giro cheque. Support will, therefore, be separated from the main social security benefits system and will principally be provided in kind and not in cash. Where accommodation is needed, it will normally be provided directly, with no choice about location. We will also consider the extent to which support for food and other basic needs can be provided by vouchers or other non-cash means. In general, support will not extend beyond the point at which the application has been decided and all appeal rights have been exhausted.

"Single budget: support on this basis will require new national machinery to plan and co-ordinate provision. There will be a single budget for asylum seeker support costs. This will be managed by the Home Office alongside the costs of the process for considering asylum cases, thus enabling a more flexible use of resources to reduce costs overall. New central machinery will be created, also under Home Office management, to contract with a range of providers to obtain accommodation; these will include the private sector, voluntary bodies, housing associations and local authorities. The intention will be to develop a national approach making use of support from existing communities and voluntary groups to relieve the current over-concentration on London and one or two other areas which is creating some severe problems there. The Government will consult widely on the detailed arrangements. In taking this work forward, we will ensure that the needs of children, whether unaccompanied or members of families, are fully protected.

"Citizenship: the Government are committed to promoting a more positive view of citizenship which both reflects and celebrates the multi-cultural, multi-racial society we have become. We will take action to reduce the waiting times for processing applications for British citizenship in order to give a more welcoming signal to prospective citizens.

"The measures described in this White Paper provide a much clearer framework for what our immigration control should be. They should also provide the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with a workable system. Bureaucracy, over-complexity, delays and backlogs often frustrate the best efforts of staff to give effect to the law and the policies of Ministers. Despite those difficulties, staff throughout IND have consistently achieved impressive results. I take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work. A clear framework and better tools for the job will enable everyone to take a fresh and more purposeful view of what they can and should achieve.

"The White Paper sets out a comprehensive and integrated strategy for immigration control. It tackles the failings of the current system and addresses the challenges we will face in the future. The Government will introduce legislation to implement the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. This legislation may be a good candidate for consideration by a Special Standing Committee of this House. Britain requires an immigration and asylum system appropriate to the demands of the 21st century. The system in place today is simply not up to the job. We need radical change to deliver a modern and efficient system which is fairer, faster and firmer. I commend the White Paper to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

6.33 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place a short while ago by his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I begin by making it clear that I welcome the efforts announced today to ensure that the system for processing claims for asylum and refuge is as fast, firm and, I hope, as fair as possible.

My questions stem from two major concerns. Are the proposals workable and fair? Have they been costed effectively. I am not demanding that the Government should spend even more money. I seek to find out if they have properly costed the plans announced today. Those questions are right and proper for any Opposition Member to ask. I recognise that the White Paper covers a great deal of ground. I shall therefore restrict the number of my questions today in the expectation that we shall give it much greater examination on future occasions, not least perhaps tomorrow when my noble friend Lord Renton asks a Question on the matter at Question Time.

I watched the interview given by the Home Secretary yesterday on BBC TV. He made it clear that the firmer and faster aspects of the policy will be part of the approach to processing claims and that the fairer part of the policy applied only to the stage post-determination of claim. Will the Minister agree with me that there is always a delicate balance in any judicial system, administrative or not, between making a quick decision and making the right decision?

The signs in the White Paper are that detention will be used more, not less, from the moment of application. Chapter 12 states that around half of those currently detained are held in prison establishments. Most of those—350—are held in the specially dedicated immigration units at Haslar and Rochester. The White Paper states that the Government are considering a need for an increase in the detention estate. Can the Minister tell the House where the Comprehensive Spending Review provides for the building of extra purpose-built detention places or whether there are extra resources over and above those announced today to cover such costs?

How many extra detention places does the Home Office intend to provide? What are its targets in such provision as a proportion of the total people held in detention? By what date do the Government expect to reduce the proportion to be held in prison as a proportion of the whole of the detainees?

Can the Minister also tell the House why it has been decided that, for immigration detainees, there will be no presumption in favour of bail? The Minister has sat in a judicial capacity and I in a minor one as a magistrate have done so also. I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that presumption in favour of bail has always been considered vital. I would be interested to hear what reasons swayed the Government against such a course in this case.

I note that the number of adjudicators and Home Office presenting officers will be substantially increased in order to speed up applications. I welcome that measure. But will there also be assistance available to the applicants in order to obtain representation in this speedier and, to those for whom English may not be their first language, more difficult process of application? I am aware of course that legal aid is not currently available for representation at tribunals. Can the Minister say whether that will continue when we then move on to block contracts on legal aid?

The White Paper proposes to transfer welfare payments from local authorities to the Home Office budget and create an asylum-seekers' allowance. On that basis, I can only assume that it would give the Home Office a vested interest in getting people off the asylum-seekers' allowance. At present, as the Minister explained, local authorities have a duty under the National Assistance Act to provide food vouchers and accommodation. The Statement refers to new, national machinery to plan and co-ordinate provision and that there will also be new central machinery created under Home Office management.

What kind of bureaucracy do the Government anticipate creating in practice? Will they simply replicate the DSS? What measures will require their involvement in reaching decisions? Presumably there will be detailed means-testing for every applicant—always a complicated and costly measure if done properly. Who will be recruited to do that work? Will the organisation publish the regulations by which decisions are made so that those representing applicants such as the citizens' advice bureaux can refer to them?

In the meantime, what body provisionally do the Government have in mind to do that work? Will the asylum-seekers' allowance only be for those who have proper documentation, as Ministers trailed in advance of the Statement today? It is true that some people destroy their passports simply to hide information. But there are others who are fleeing from corrupt authoritarian regimes who may never have been allowed access to official documents to enable them to travel. What happens to them? Will they still be subject to local authority payments under the National Assistance Act? If so, where is that costing in the Comprehensive Spending Review, or is it not in that review at all? Are the local authorities not to be allowed off the hook after all?

I return to the question I posed last week on the Comprehensive Spending Review. Do the Government intend to restore in-country benefits? If so, where is that costing provided?

Does the new system fully recognise the potential costs of applications? I believe that there will be more applications for judicial review as a result of some of the measures announced today. We are told that the new system will process applications within six months from the making of the claim to the announcement of the decision, a laudable objective which I welcome. I may be mistaken, and I welcome correction from the Minister, but it appears from the Statement that only two months is available for the production of evidence. I wonder therefore whether there could be an increase in the number of applications for judicial review on the basis, first of all, that evidence has come to light subsequently about which the applicant could have had no knowledge within the period allowed for the production of information. There might also be the allegation that a Minister has not properly taken evidence into account within the shortened period of consideration of information.

Another policy which has been trailed in advance and announced today is the reintroduction of the right of appeal for refused visitors. I understand that the visitors will have to pay for the administration of the appeal if they are refused entry. That may well be a worthy aim of saving the taxpayer money, but I question how it will work in practice. This is not a question critical of the government but a practical one. Can the Government confirm that it is anticipated that there will be two methods of appeal process: the first, a short one, which will be heard on papers only; the second an oral hearing? I understand that Ministers have referred to the cost of the appeal as being "high". What are the estimates of these costs to each individual applicant under each of those two different types of appeal? It would be extraordinary if the Labour Government were to give preferential treatment, in effect, to wealthy applicants.

What would the Government's solution be to the anomaly which I foresee whereby somebody who has struggled to save sufficient funds to support themselves during their six months here—so that when they come here they can say "I have the money; I can support myself. I therefore qualify for entry as a visitor"—then finds that he or she is refused and has to use those funds to pay for the appeal? They are then in a position of being destitute and therefore cannot qualify to stay.

I began by saying that I would pose questions which I believed were proper for the Opposition to ask the Government. They are particularly relevant for me to ask given my background in welfare advice over the past 22 years. I have always posed such questions whatever the party in government. I remember posing a question at the time when the government were headed by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. It is a question of how we achieve a balance of fairness between the individual and the taxpayer, a question which goes to the very heart of government. A government of whatever party will always say that of course they have got the balance right. On this occasion I hope so. Our task will be to examine the reality as the policy bites.

Earl Russell

My Lords, this Statement reminds me of an intriguing day I spent in the Public Record Office reading the original manuscript of the fundamental constitution of the Carolinas in which alternate words were written in the hands of John Locke and the Earl of Shaftesbury. In much the same way I hear two voices in the Statement. One is the voice of a new government who seriously want to put a lot of things right; the other is the same voice of the Home Office that we have been hearing unchanged for more years than I care to remember—in fact since the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, ceased to be its permanent secretary. We have a new broom but a great deal of dust.

I take the opening of paragraph 24 of the Statement as an example. It begins: In opposition, I said that, in a civilised society, genuine asylum seekers could not be left destitute. I am honouring that commitment today". That is good and I welcome it. The next sentence runs on: We need a system which reduces the incentive to economic migration". Those two sentences cannot sit together. We cannot tell which asylum seekers are genuine victims of persecution and which are economic migrants until we hear their cases. A system which bites on one must bite equally on the other. A system which bites on both risks being in breach of our international legal obligations which the Government in this Statement give a very welcome commitment to honour. Until we drop the idea that we can deter asylum seekers by making conditions tougher for them without departing from our international legal obligations we have not even got started.

I understand that the flow of asylum seekers is very large, and that must cause concern to a great many countries. The way to reduce that flow is through the Foreign Office rather than through the Home Office—to do more to make it safe for them to remain in their countries of origin, as the Government are already attempting to do. If we are to deter asylum seekers from Kosovo we must make it safe for them to remain in their country of origin. If we cannot do one, then we are under a legal obligation to do the other.

I grant that the need for greater speed is immense. The chief obstacle to speed is the culture of disbelief inside the Home Office. The Minister once said to me at Question Time that there is no culture of disbelief inside the Home Office. That was a commendable loyalty to his own department. We do not take bets inside the Chamber, but I would be surprised if the Minister could find many people informed about the subject to agree with that view once he got beyond the boundaries of Queen Anne's Gate.

I received a letter only this afternoon—I shall be writing to Mr. O'Brien later tonight—about an Angolan asylum seeker in my borough of Brent. Formerly married to a high official of UNITA, she was therefore obviously likely to be in danger if she returned there. The adjudicator was not merely unaware that she had been married to this man—believing she had had only a casual relationship with him—but had not even asked her any questions before forming this conclusion.

The Minister may wish to say that this is an ex-parte statement. As the papers on the case have not yet reached him he is perfectly free to do so. Were this to prove an accurate story it would be all too familiar among those who have dealt with any number of asylum cases.

Disbelief causes delay. Disbelief causes further appeals. I am a little perturbed by the view that there are too many appeals. The Minister need only look at the correspondence he has been having with me in the past few weeks to realise that there may be perfectly genuine cases which have slipped through all the stages of the procedure through such things as their lawyers not appearing at hearings. He knows the cases to which I refer. I shall not go on.

There were many genuinely good things in the Statement. I was delighted to hear the Minister acknowledge the debt that this country owes to its immigrants. Coming from a Welsh Minister addressing a predominantly English audience that is an act of great generosity. I thank him for it. I was delighted to hear him say that a failed application need not necessarily be an example of abuse. That is a vital aid to interpreting statistics.

I was delighted by the provision on visitor appeals. I shall not soon forget the speech made by noble Baroness, Lady Flather, against that provision when it was introduced in 1993. It was one of the most moving speeches that I have heard in this Chamber. That provision is another example of the way in which further restriction leads to further delay. This will now make it unnecessary to take cases to the Minister, such as that which I took to Mr O'Brien on the subject last week, to which he responded with great generosity. I shall in future be able to save his time. If we are less incredulous, we get on a bit faster.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister (whose hand I think I see in this) for the provision on judicial oversight for the detention of asylum seekers. That is one of the very best features of the Statement—and I am delighted by it. I thank the Government and I believe that I am entitled to thank the Minister personally. The noble Lord probably will not want to answer that point, but if the cap fits, I hope that he will wear it in private.

I am delighted to hear that more resources are being made available. The whole of the asylum system is a good example of the principle that efficiency is not efficient. I am delighted that the Minister has adopted Sir David Ramsbotham's recommendations to give a statutory basis to rules in detention centres. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me whether that will cover transfers from detention centres to ordinary prisons.

On the other hand, there are things in the Statement which cause me considerable concern. I refer to paragraph 11 on deterring passengers from travelling with inadequate documentation. That appears to me to misunderstand the basic nature of being a refugee. It is the basic nature of the condition that you are not in a position before you leave to present yourself happily to the authorities in your own country and to ask for papers, saying, "Please, I want to run away from you. You are persecuting me". Tyrannical authorities tend not to like that sort of approach. I have not forgotten the problem of refugees from Mostar who were supposed to get a visa from the nearest British consulate, which happened to be in Zagreb, with large numbers of enemy troops between them and it.

I believe that that paragraph is also contrary to Article 31 of the UN convention which states: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … are present in their territory without authorization". The Government are committed to honouring their legal obligations. I am glad that they are. I hope that they will look again at whether paragraph 11 of the Statement is compatible with that obligation.

Most of all, I am worried by the provisions of paragraph 24. I should like the Minister to look carefully at Article 24 of the UN convention on refugees, which provides that refugees shall not be discriminated against in terms of social security, and I should like the Minister to ask himself whether he is confident that the Government's case on this will stand up in court.

I should also like the Minister to remember, when he attempts to justify provision in kind, President Clinton's first food drop to the Bosnian Moslems, which was 30 per cent. pork. People from other countries and people of other religions do not necessarily have the same dietary requirements as we do, and provision in kind may completely fail to meet the needs.

I am also extremely worried about the provision that asylum seekers shall have no choice of location. That comes somewhere in the area approaching house arrest. It is a restriction. It also raises the acute problem of what happens in the case of relationship breakdowns. Also, if we should have more trouble of the sort encountered in Eltham, it would, as it did in Lübeck, provide handy targets for those who wish to make the worst sort of trouble. That is not a satisfactory provision.

I am also unhappy about the provision for five days (instead of 25) for making representations, especially if the people concerned are detained at Heathrow and are unable to get access to support groups. That will work particularly severely in cases of torture.

As to what the Minister said about amnesty, I understand why he says it and I respect it, but it really deserves the comment, c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

The Government should look at what they have said about inadequate documentation and at Article 31 of the UN convention. Before the Government say that the convention does not apply, they should read Article 1, which defines refugees, and the explanation of it in the UNHCR handbook and ask themselves, "Is this statement schizophrenic and, if so, will it turn out"—as I hope that it will and as I am sure that it will if the Minister has anything to do with it—"that the better part will come out on top?" There is a lot of work still to do.

6.55 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, indeed, there is. I do not think that anybody could possibly dissent from the fact that the process is presently a shambles. It has been built up by good ideas here and there over a period of many years, some of which have been a reaction to the pressures of the moment while some have related to ignoble pressures of longer than a moment. However, we are trying now to have a fundamental review of how we deal with the problem, recognising that we inherit enormous difficulties, and bearing in mind that substantial public funds will have to be found.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, directed my eye to paragraph 24, which states: genuine asylum seekers could not be left destitute … We need a system which reduces the incentive to economic migration and which recognises that what the genuine asylum seeker needs is food and shelter, not a giro cheque". There is no contradiction between the first sentence and the second sentence. It is undoubtedly true that many people—I genuinely sympathise with them and I am sorry for them because the same impetus would drive me—want to change their country of residence because they want to better themselves financially. I repeat that I am sorry for that. In the 19th century, the United States offered them their remedy. We do not offer it as a remedy here, now. I do not mean to be harsh. I am simply stating the facts of life. Therefore, we need a system which reduces the incentive to economic migration. One way of dealing with that is to make sure that those in need receive food and shelter, not giro cheques. That has nothing to do with deterring genuine asylum seekers. It is merely to point out the inevitability that some people will always want to move simply to better themselves and that they do not fall within our regime. Whatever party may come to power later, I do not believe that any government in this country will ever be able to offer such an open door again.

The noble Earl asked some further questions about those who arrive without documentation. Generally, he made a good point, but paragraph 11 does not focus only on passengers with inadequate documentation. It states that we have to combat document and other fraud. I understand the noble Earl's example, that if you are fleeing tyranny, your first point of call is unlikely to be in the home of tyranny and to ask for travel documents. However, that is by no means the whole of the experience. Some people use fraudulent documents for improper purposes. They are driven to do that by desperation, but our regime will not accommodate that in all the circumstances. I stress that I am not being harsh, but am simply spelling out the facts of life.

I turn now to the question of location. One problem which will cause a Lübeck situation, to which the noble Earl referred, is an over-concentration of refugees in a very small number of locations. That adds to the burden faced by local authorities, many of which are very hard pressed. It also causes enormous resentment because of the concentration in one particular place of people with a different background and a different culture. No one is condemning anyone to house arrest. We are saying that we must consider the dispersal of some claimants and applicants out of the Greater London conurbation and Dover to different areas. Obviously, one would have to pay careful attention to the fact that people should not simply be dumped there. They should be accommodated with others from a similar background, whether religious—the noble Earl referred to adherence to Islam—or linguistic. We are not offering Mr. Clinton's pork dropped by parachute; we are trying to focus quite limited resources so that they are properly used.

The noble Earl was kind enough to refer to judicial intervention. I hope that that goes hand in hand with the fact that written reasons will be given. What we hope for by way of judicial intervention is not only the delivery of written reasons but an effective bail application within seven days. That kind of straitjacket is a very good one to impose because thereby one achieves a better outcome when one is dealing with bureaucracies.

The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, beginning with the proposal of Sir David Ramsbotham about the necessity for an increase in the detention estate. I do not believe that that was focused upon by most members of the public when they read his report on Campsfield House. The overwhelming majority of the recommendations were immediately accepted by Mr. Straw. The answers to the questions on finance are to be found on page 60 in the spending plans annex. One sees a vast amount of detail about outturns, plans and provisional plans going up to the year 2001/02. All of the information is set out there.

The noble Baroness asked a specific question about extra detention facilities. I repeat what my right honourable friend has said in the past. Extra detention places are important but they can be made available only as resources allow. As to additional assistance to be given to IND, that will receive another £124 million over three years. Of that, we envisage that about £100 million will be applied to speeding up the processing of claims, including clearing the backlog.

It is utterly indefensible that there should be 10,000 applications that have not even had a first determination and have been waiting since before the middle of 1993. The Home Secretary has made plain in this Statement that that kind of delay will be a factor in considering the outcome. A good deal of these proposals must be worked out interdepartmentally because the Home Office will have a significantly expanded role in dealing with the management of this problem. It is not possible for me to give specific answers now because in the nature of things the White Paper speaks about future legislation and reorganisation. Obviously, that must follow consultation between departments.

The noble Baroness asked specifically about judicial review. Judicial review has been notoriously ill-used, if not abused, over the past years. Of those applicants who are given leave to apply for judicial review significantly less than 10 per cent. ever succeed. I make no apology for saying that judicial review has become a significant cottage industry. In the majority of cases the people who benefit from it are not those who apply but those who use funds provided at public expense in order to continue these appeals.

I believe that the last point raised by the noble Baroness related to visitors who were refused access to the country, always for short periods of time and mainly for family occasions such as funerals or weddings. Many people from the Indian sub-continent observe or celebrate these matters in a different way from us. They are much more important in terms of time and expense. We believe it is not unreasonable that if there is an appeal it should be paid for by the applicant. The figure given by the Home Secretary was of the order of £250. If one has saved to be self-sufficient in this country for six months and paid the fares from, say, the Indian sub-continent or parts of Africa, while that is a significant sum it should not be an absolute deterrent. Therefore, we have delivered on that. We have abolished primary purpose. We have set up a distinct Act to deal with the outcome of the Chahal case. The noble Earl believes that there is still a culture of disbelief in the Home Office. When I raised this matter this morning in preparing myself for these questions I was assured that there was no such culture in the Home Office. Who am I to disbelieve that assertion?

It will take some years to get this right. Delays must be reduced and there must be judicial control of those who are detained. People are entitled to written reasons. Equally, we have a general duty to the public to recognise that what we offer by way of asylum and refuge is precisely that. With the best will in the world, we do not and cannot provide an open door to everyone who wants to live here. This is a very attractive country in many ways but we cannot sustain an open door policy. What we can have is a policy that deals fairly with all. The noble Baroness is correct in saying that the correct policy is to achieve a delicate balance between what is quick and what is right. I do not believe that we are in disagreement as to what we look to.

7.5 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the backlog in the hearing of appeals to which he has referred is concentrated largely in one or two centres where there is no room to appoint further adjudicators? Does he agree that in other locations resources are under-used? Is it proposed to show greater flexibility in the venues where appeals are to be heard, if necessary with some allocation of resources to transport appellants? Perhaps I may echo the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I do not believe my noble friend adverted. Will he think again about the five-day limitation period which bears very harshly on new arrivals in a foreign country?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the five-day limitation is that which presently obtains for others. A good deal of thought has been given to that limitation. As to the backlog, my noble and learned friend is both right and wrong. Of the backlog to which I referred—10,000 over five years old (pre-June 1993)—they are not appeals at all. In those cases not even an initial decision has been taken. Therefore, they are not part of the appeal backlog. I am aware, however, of the second point to which my noble and learned friend has alluded. He asked whether the resource that was available for the hearing of appeals was being properly used on a nationwide basis. I believe that there is a very good case for concluding that the system should be used more flexibly as my noble and learned friend implies. Certainly, that is something that is under consideration. We also want to give the appeal tribunal greater status so that it is less likely to be the subject of successful applications for judicial review.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I too should like to commend the comments of the Minister about the provision of written reasons and keeping a register of lawyers. There are some very unscrupulous lawyers who have been battening on the misery of people trying to emigrate to this country. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look again at two issues that particularly affect genuine refugees. Like most of the House, I recognise that not everybody falls into that category. The five-day limit bites particularly hard on people who claim that they have been tortured. Often these are people who have been the most outstanding dissenters or fighters for democracy in authoritarian regimes. I do not understand how any genuine refugee who falls into this category can hope to obtain an adequate medical examination for his appeal within five days. Associated with that, I am extremely troubled by the remarks of the Minister on the subject of documentation. He explained helpfully that no one with proper documentation would be refused entry, but he did not say what steps might be taken by someone with inadequate documentation to indicate that he was a genuine refugee. Again, the five-day limit is particularly hard on those who are most probably real refugees—people without adequate documentation and with very serious charges of abuse, torture or other maltreatment in the countries from which they have come.

Finally, I ask him to consider whether some small cash element might remain in the support that refugees will be given, all the more because they will be dispersed. I have in mind the issues of how a refugee will ring his lawyer and how he will travel to a place at which he may meet an NGO interested in his case. In other words, will the noble Lord consider a margin of cash—I am asking only for a margin—which will enable genuine refugees to reach, associate with and meet those who intend to assist them?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, obviously I shall bear in mind what the noble Baroness said about the five-day limit, not least—and I am not being discourteous—because that point was made so valiantly by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell a moment or two ago. All I can say is that we shall listen carefully to what has been said.

The question of documentation is not always easy. It is not always the position that someone has left his or her country of origin without documentation but that sometimes documentation is forged; sometimes it is acquired here on the basis of forgery; and also that there is in many cases—this is not simply anecdotal—a deliberate, wilful destruction of documents when the airliner has already been boarded. We cannot pretend that these things do not happen. We do have a duty, which is not an overarching duty but a significant duty, first, to genuine asylum seekers and, secondly, to people who already live in this country.

I think I can assist the noble Baroness on the question of a cash margin. I shall re-read the single sentence in paragraph 24 of the Statement that is of relevance: Support will, therefore, be separated from the main social security benefits system"— these are the words for which I think the noble Baroness is looking— and will principally be provided in kind, and not in cash". I think that is the indication—perhaps it is a nudge—at which the noble Baroness wanted me to look.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I wish to raise a brief point on the British Refugee Council panel of advisers for unaccompanied refugee children. This invaluable non-statutory scheme was set up by the Home Office a few years ago as a result of debate in this House. Is the Minister able to give an assurance that the scheme, which costs very little to run, will continue in operation?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am personally sympathetic to the noble and learned Lord's point. At the moment I am intending to be the messenger, waiting for the message. In fact, I am happy to combine being the messenger and giving the message, because, extremely quietly, my noble friend Lord Hoyle transmitted the message. The scheme will continue.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, the Government deserve congratulations on tackling this whole matter in the comprehensive way set out in the White Paper. The word "shambles" was used a number of times. That is clearly the correct word to use about the present situation. It is a situation for which the previous government must bear as much responsibility as the present government. But I am not sure that they were to blame. The blame is in regard to the failure of administration—I have some sympathy with the point raised by the noble Earl—of successive generations in the Home Office to tackle the matter efficiently. If one wants an illustration of that one has only to look at paragraphs 11.14 and 11.15 of the White Paper on fingerprinting. The situation is quite lamentable.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, does he recognise that in order to have a much better system of identification we need to introduce a national identity number not only for citizens in this country, for which one does not exist at the moment, but particularly for people who have been processed under the existing and will be processed under the planned system of immigration control? Secondly, may I emphasise the reference to ill considered legislation, which is one of the reasons why the system has not worked up to now? Perhaps I may suggest that, frankly, this is an extremely good argument for the continuation of your Lordships' House as a scrutinising Chamber.

I wish to ask a specific question on asylum seekers' support, which in the annex to the White Paper is put down for the present year and the coming year as £350 million. That is a significant sum. The annex shows "n/a" for 1997–98 and for 1996–97. Can the noble Lord give some idea of how the £350 million compares with previous years' expenditure for the same purposes? Is this expenditure to be cash limited?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Lord made some extremely important comments when he directed your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 11.14 and 11.15 of the White Paper. Paragraph 11.15 is really rather lamentable. Perhaps it is worth looking at. It states: The system is outdated and requires investment before it can add significantly to the removals effort. We will be considering the extent to which the use of targeted fingerprinting with commensurate technical support would substantially strengthen the enforcement effort. The protocol to the Eurodac Convention referred to later in this chapter will, in any event, require a change to our existing legislation to provide for the routine fingerprinting of certain illegal immigrants". Furthermore, and again taking up the noble Lord's point, at the bottom of page 58 the White Paper helpfully sets out: The following elements of the strategy can only be achieved with primary legislation". A menu is then set out there for those who, like the noble Lord, think that this House has a useful function as a revising Chamber, which, of course, he put to me entirely non-controversially.

The Secretary of State's Statement in another place indicated that one might be looking to a special committee to deal with these areas. Essentially, what we need is an efficient outcome and not to be clouded by partisan jibes of who should have done what over the past 25 years. I have tried to avoid that this afternoon. Certainly, an enormous amount of scrutiny will be required because one is looking, I hope, at a rational spectrum to put right what has not been put right, or to put right what has been approached in a piecemeal fashion in the past.

On the expenditure questions, the expenditure will decline as the process speeds up, beginning with the clearance of the backlog. I do not think that is a complete answer in terms of the detail the noble Lord wanted. I shall do my best to research the figures but they are really quite complex to obtain. The equivalents he wanted were between a figure of, say, £350 million when support is transferred to Home Office control as opposed to all those elements of housing benefit, general support, local authority costings and so forth. I shall do my best to research those figures—they are rather difficult and perhaps sometimes shrouded in mystery—and write to the noble Lord as soon as I can.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am concerned about detention and about its present cost at its present level of use. Is the Minister in a position to say that in future detention will be reserved for those people who are awaiting deportation rather than being used, as happens at present, for asylum seekers whose cases have not yet been determined?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, one of the purposes of the streamlined appeal system will be that when the appeal mechanism is concluded, it is anticipated that part of the order will be directions for speedy removal.

I take up a point which I should have answered a little more fully, which is reflected in the noble Lord's question. Detention criteria are set out in Chapter 12.3. I shall read the words in order to be helpful: The Government has decided that, whilst there is a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release, detention is normally justified in the following circumstances: where there is a reasonable belief that the individual will fail to keep the terms of temporary admission or temporary release; initially, to clarify a person's identity and the basis of their claim: or where removal is imminent". Those are the aspects of the question which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised.

Lord Judd

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that for many of us who are deeply concerned about the issues covered by the White Paper, what has been said today and in the White Paper gives much ground for encouragement? We recognise the endeavours of Ministers to bring together humanity and effectiveness in ensuring an improvement in policy, and we applaud that.

Does my noble friend agree that underlying the administration of policy in this area is what can only be described as a philosophical dimension? It is this. The objective of Government may be to reassure the people of Britain that somehow they will be protected against hordes of people out there in the world trying get into Britain. It is an easy game to play with disastrous consequences, not least to race relations among those already within the United Kingdom. On the other hand, one of the greatest and most fundamental objectives of Government in this country should be to uphold the principles of asylum, to uphold the rights of refugees. That is the governing feature. But it has to be administered effectively. We cannot accept everyone. We have to recognise exploitation. We have to recognise that there are people who do not have a genuine case. However, the overriding consideration is to uphold the principle of the right of asylum and the protection of refugees.

Those involved in the administration of policy in this area, not least those responsible for detention, should be imbued with that underlying spirit so that the dignity of people, wherever they are in the system, is given primacy at all times.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, there is indeed a philosophical dimension. Those who need asylum, those who are genuine refugees, are entitled morally and philosophically and as a matter of international treaty obligation to be properly, fairly and decently treated. We sought to demonstrate that. Since we have been in office and power, primary purpose has been done away with; appeals concerning visitors' visas will be allowed; written reasons for those who are detained will be absolutely critical; and there will be judicial involvement for those who are detained. There is an important chapter in the White Paper about citizenship. It may gather few headlines, but it has that great philosophical underpinning. And, not as a tangent but as part of the whole picture, there are the provisions by the Home Secretary in the Crime and Disorder Bill about racial harassment; and not least his approach towards the Stephen Lawrence case.

The Earl of Dartmouth

My Lords, as a chartered accountant and the holder of an MBA from Harvard, I am well used to analysing figures. The key point of the Statement is that the number of asylum-seekers has increased in the last 10 years from 4,000 to 32,000 in a not more notably unstable world. That suggests—it may even be said to demonstrate—a strong fraudulent element. Noble Lords should be aware, in particular those who have stood for election, that the phenomenon of bogus asylum-seekers, especially when kept here by legal aid, is of strong concern to the British elector and the British and UK taxpayer. I ask the Minster to bear in mind that strong concern when new rules are implemented.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Earl said that the numbers had increased from 4,000 to about 32,000. Those were the figures I gave. He is right. However, he said that the world has not become notably less stable. I would find it extremely uncomfortable to say that to anyone who lived in Rwanda, Burundi or in the former Yugoslavia, to take but a few areas at random.

The Earl of Sandwich

My Lords, during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, there was much talk about the disparity between in-country applicants and port of entry applicants. Has that disparity now been removed?

I welcome what the Minister said about detention. I have only one point. Can the written reasons be specific rather than general?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, one needs to be as specific as one can bearing in mind that if one is to have a regime of written reasons there will be a degree of standardisation. However, written reasons impose serious duties on the person giving them. If they are not to the point, they would be subject to review.