HL Deb 11 October 2000 vol 617 cc323-6

2.44 p.m.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they will take to remove the legal uncertainty for asylum seekers and would-be immigrants created by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Notices) Regulations 2000 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6 Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000 to avoid any risk that they may breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)

My Lords, I do not believe that this legislation has any uncertainty. If someone wishes to claim that he should be allowed to stay in this country because of the Government's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights he can do so. Any such claim will be properly considered. If it is refused the person has a right of appeal under the provisions introduced by the legislation.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In order that noble Lords can understand what this Question is about, I have placed in the Library copies of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal last Friday, a letter sent by me on Monday to the Home Secretary and a letter that I received today from the Deputy President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Mr Mark Ockelton. As regards the absence of any warning to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal adjudicators that they were not intended to be empowered to protect human rights in appeals against decisions taken before 2nd October, is the Minister aware that the Home Office's version of events is at variance with that of the judges? In the words of the Deputy President, The terms of the Commencement (No. 6) Order were a surprise to the judicial and administrative members of the [tribunal]. Administrative arrangements had been made on the assumption that all cases heard after 2nd October would be"—

Noble Lords

Order, order!

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I need to read this in order that noble Lords understand the position. First, is the noble Lord aware that there is a sharp disagreement on that matter? The adjudicators say that they were not consulted. Secondly, does the Minister in reply intend to give the assurances that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal demanded of the Home Office during the appeal on Friday? Will he confirm that those who come before adjudicators or the tribunal are properly informed by the Home Office of their right of appeal?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will attempt to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, in view of the length of the Question I wonder whether this is perhaps a more appropriate subject for a debate or Unstarred Question.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, perhaps I should explain to the Leader of the House that I wrote to the Home Secretary—

Noble Lords

Order, order!

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord: it is, after all, a complex issue. As to the points that have been raised, I am more than happy for the helpful dialogue between the noble Lord and the Home Office to continue. The noble Lord is right in that in this matter there appears to be a difference of opinion between the tribunal and the understanding of the Home Office. We must study this very complex matter carefully. Above all, it is the intention of the Government to ensure that people fully understand and enjoy their human rights.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that for the past 35 years since ratification of the European convention the rights set out in the Human Rights Act have been acknowledged by this country as something by which it is bound? Can my noble friend assure the House that those who have been denied the opportunity to raise these issues at an earlier stage will not be precluded from doing so before the immigration authorities when the question arises of their return to their own countries?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I would have thought that from the recent launch of the human rights awareness campaign it was patently clear that the Government are profoundly committed to ensuring that people are made fully aware of those rights. We have a proud record and tradition and the Government are more than happy to stand by it.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth

My Lords, the question is indeed complex. Having read the briefing, this matter goes beyond the bounds of the present proceedings. However, I believe that there is a case for asking the Government to place under ever closer scrutiny the just practices and fair procedures for appeals, in recognition of the fact that appeals are for the benefit of appellants as well as the rest of the community. On the day that we give thanks for Donald Dewar I am proud to wear a Celtic cross around my neck. Once upon a time the Scots and Irish were asylum seekers. Will the Government press for the abolition of the emotive term "asylum seeker" and use the more neutral, and humanitarian, word "refugee"?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, we deal with the law as it is and use the terms "asylum seeker" as well as "refugee". The right reverend Prelate is right to say that the subject is very complex. We shall endeavour to ensure that there is a common understanding of decisions made by the tribunal in these matters. We shall do all that we can to ensure that people are made fully aware of their rights.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I, too, have had the advantage of sight of the correspondence on this extremely complex matter. Am I correct in thinking that the result of the Government's decision and the orders mentioned in the Question is that there will need to be two hearings on disputed cases? How does that square with everyone's aim to speed up the immigration and asylum process?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, there may be cases where there will need to be two hearings. But with the new orders we have provided for a one-stop appeals process. That will not preclude people from making a human rights claim.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, perhaps I may press the Minister further. He will be aware that the refugee legal centre believes that this will double the backlog of appeals. Can he therefore assure the House that those who are subject to removal or to having their extended leave to enter refused should be informed of their rights so that the matter can be dealt with at one and the same time? In that way the problem to which the noble Lord referred could be avoided to the benefit of the whole community.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, the Government have acted rapidly over the past year to ensure that the whole backlog issue is dealt with. The matter has been tackled. The backlog of cases is now down to 76,000 from 102,000 at the beginning of the year. Part IV of the Act introduces the one-stop appeals procedure. That should speed up matters and ensure that where appropriate the two sets of issues can be considered together.

Lord Renton

My Lords, having supported—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Noble Lords

Order!

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I think the feeling of the House is that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should ask a question.

Lord Renton

My Lords, having supported the Government in their introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights into our law and the work of our courts, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he agrees that, when there is a conflict or apparent conflict between our law and a convention but a doubt as to the effect of the convention, that doubt should be resolved in favour of our law.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, it has been a long-standing tradition that we abide by convention rights. We have a long and proud history of so doing. But finally and ultimately it is for Parliament to make law and to ensure that the laws of the country are properly put in place.