Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill

HL Deb 06 April 1987 vol 486 cc857-91

7.17 p.m.

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to close a loophole in our immigration control. The problem has arisen from people coming here without the documents they need to establish their position and then resisting return by claiming asylum. In the three months to the end of February, over 800 people applied for asylum at our ports. Our system of" immigration control was under serious threat and quick action had to be taken. This Bill is the result.

The Bill is therefore aimed directly at preventing the exploitation of our immigration control. While its cause was the extensive use of asylum claims at our ports, it is emphatically not aimed at reducing the Government's commitment to the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Our commitment remains as firm as ever.

The single purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people do not travel here without the documents they need to identify themselves and without the visas the nationals of some countries must have under the immigration rules. These requirements have been agreed by Parliament and apply to would-be asylum-seekers as to everyone else. It is essential that they should be enforced if we are to maintain a consistent and coherent immigration control in the interests of everyone in this country, not least our hard pressed inner city areas. As recent months have shown, if we allow people to flout the visa or other requirements, our control will quickly be overwhelmed and everyone will suffer.

We are not alone in facing such problems. Many other countries throughout the world are also facing enormous pressures from people, particularly from the third world, who are seeking a better life elsewhere and have the means to achieve their objectives. The consequences of greater mobility and readier access to air travel have been felt throughout the Western world and have required these countries to examine searchingly their rules and procedures in response.

It was against this background that Parliament last year approved an extension of the visa requirement to five countries in the Indian sub-continent and West Africa. In the first eight months of last year, some 8,500 people from these five countries were refused entry at Heathrow and Gatwick, nearly 50 per cent, more than in the same period the year before. And in the next six weeks the ports came under increasing pressure from people with no claim to come to this country hoping to secure a foothold here before the visa deadline.

The new visa arrangements represented a considerable improvement for the great majority of people wishing to come here. The arrangements in Ghana and the Indian sub-continent have been operating for six months, and over 90 per cent, of applications are dealt with the day they are received. There are efficient and effective arrangements to help those who find they need a visa in an emergency. Posts have duty officers available seven days a week to issue emergency visas; so there is no reason at all why anyone with legitimate grounds for travelling to this country cannot get a visa. The visa arrangements have reduced the pressure at the ports, and have gone a long way to restore the effectiveness of the immigration controls.

However, in recent months we faced a new threat; that of an increasing number of people who need visas but who are simply ignoring the requirements. Instead, they travel here, often without any documents at all, and then hope to be allowed to stay by claiming asylum when they arive. The 800 or so applications for asylum made at the ports in the three months to the end of February represented nearly twice as many as for the whole of 1984. Nearly 500 of these were from Sri Lanka. In December and January some 370 Sri Lankans arrived without valid visas and claimed asylum. This was more than half the total number of Sri Lankans who applied and were granted visas in Colombo in those two months.

The problem is not confined to this country. In February this year, Canada introduced new measures to control asylum abuse. The problems for West Germany are well known: last year nearly 100,000 people applied there for asylum. The French Government announced last August that they would be looking afresh at their regulations because of the problems that an influx of asylum-seekers was causing. In October last year Denmark enacted urgent legislation to refuse access to the asylum procedure for those who came from a safe third country. Sweden has done the same. The Belgian Parliament is currently considering legislation to tighten the arrangements for asylum-seekers, and only yesterday the Swiss people approved by a large majority proposals for tightening up asylum application procedures in order to reduce the increasing influx of people seeking refuge there. Since January this year the number seeking asylum in Switzerland has been more than double the figure for the same period last year.

A number of these and other countries have concluded that charges on carriers should form part of their response. So there is legislation specifically to allow for charges to be made on carriers bringing in undocumented people in Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia, as well as in West Germany and Denmark. The Belgian Parliament has such legislation before it at present and I understand that the Dutch propose to bring forward similar legislation later this year.

The Government have approached this problem in close co-operation with our Community partners. Following work started under our presidency, the Belgian presidency will be presenting shortly to Ministers the recommendations of a working group on asylum and travel document abuse. I understand that the report makes reference to member countries introducing a charge on carriers for carrying undocumented passengers, on much the lines of the Bill at present before your Lordships. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to discuss the report with other members of the Community this month. But the discussions so far have all recognised that it is for individual countries to take the action that they consider necessary to protect their immigration control. The proposals in this Bill are therefore very much in line with the way in which other countries and the Community as a whole are moving.

Just as this Bill is not unique internationally, neither does it break wholly new ground in the legislation of this country. Under the Immigration Act 1971 carriers are already responsible for detention and maintenance costs of most people refused entry. And they must also pay removal costs if directions for removal are given within two months of refusal of entry. The present Bill simply builds on those requirements. It ensures that the problem of undocumented passengers is effectively stopped before it starts.

I should like to move now to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 enables a charge of £1,000 to be made for each passenger who requires leave to enter the United Kingdom, and who arrives at the immigration control without a valid passport or other acceptable travel document, and without a valid visa where one is required under the immigration rules. The level of the charge may be varied by order, subject to negative resolution.

Clause 1 also provides that no liability will be incurred if the carrier can show that at the time of embarkation the passenger produced the necessary valid documents; and it specifies that any document should be regarded as genuine unless its falsity was reasonably apparent. This is nothing new: it is the same test as is already in the Immigration Act in relation to carriers' liabilities for maintenance and custody costs.

Clause 2 extends the Act to the whole of the United Kingdom and provides for liability to the charge to start from 5th March, 1987.

The Bill is deliberately short and simple. We recognise, of course, that it will involve carriers in additional work, but that should not be over-exaggerated. It applies only to those requiring leave to enter the United Kingdom; not British citizens, not others with the right of abode, not other European Community nationals coming here under the treaty. The Bill does not in any way expect carriers or their employees to act as immigration officers, either by making decisions about entry or by using the skills of immigration officers in assessing a passenger's intentions or detailed documentation.

The Bill does not expect carriers to spot clever forgeries, or to have an expert knowledge of the immigration rules. It simply expects them to check that a passport looks like a passport, that it is valid and contains a convincing photograph, and that the passenger has what looks like a valid visa if he needs one. There is no requirement to check other forms of entry clearance. Carriers already undertake these simple checks before carrying people to an increasing number of other countries throughout the world. Given the problems that we have found in recent months, it is reasonable to expect them to do the same for us.

Of course there may be cases where a carrier is in technical breach of the provision but where it would not be sensible to impose a charge on him. The Bill allows for this. The Secretary of State can decide in any particular case not to press for a charge. It would not be sensible to try to identify in advance all the sorts of case where this might apply, but I can assure your Lordships that discretion will be used reasonably and with good judgment.

The aim of the Bill is, of course, to make it much more difficult for people to come to this country without the proper documents. And it is intended to stop abuse of asylum procedures by preventing people travelling here without valid documents and then claiming asylum before they can be returned. We cannot afford to ignore such abuse, nor the concerted efforts of an increasing number of people to circumvent our immigration controls. Many of these people had been the victims of racketeers, who grew rich on the misguided hopes of people wishing to leave their own country for a better future elsewhere.

The need for this legislation was pointed up by the arrival on 13th February of 64 Tamil asylum-seekers who were refused entry. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has referred these cases to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and will make his decisions on the individual cases in the light of all the relevant facts. Your Lordships will appreciate that I can make no comment on these cases today.

It might be for the convenience of your Lordships, however, if I said something about our arrangements for referral to the UKIAS and about the general issue of appeal rights for asylum-seekers. The Government have considered ways to solve the problem of giving asylum-seekers access to a second opinion while avoiding the risks of exploitation by people claiming asylum simply to gain a foothold here. It has proved impossible to devise an appeal procedure which does not give such a person an opportunity for delaying his departure. This delay can often in effect decide the issue since the longer someone is here the more difficult it becomes for him to be removed. Appeals procedures take time: if they are rushed or skimped, they will carry little conviction. But the reality is that those who are able to play for time can win a foothold here, whatever the merits of the case. It is this potential for abuse which has made it impossible sensibly to give a formal right of appeal to asylum applicants refused at the ports.

As your Lordships know, part of our response to this problem since 1983 has been a limited arrangement involving reference of asylum-seekers to UKIAS. My noble friend the Minister of State explained in his Statement on 3rd March in your Lordships' House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intended to enter into discussions with UKIAS about how the present arrangements should be revised. These discussions would also involve the United Kingdom representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

We have not yet had an opportunity to embark on these discussions. They need to be held carefully, and there is, I am sure, no advantage to anyone in discussions being rushed or ill-considered. But I can assure your Lordships that it is not the Government's intention to abolish the referral system or greatly to reduce its scope. The Government's objectives are to adapt the system to meet the new problems and the new situations that have emerged.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, would the Minister confirm that Mr. Barry Stoyle, the head of the UKIAS refugee unit, wrote to the Home Office stating that his staff were available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to take representations from asylum seekers at the ports of entry? How can the Minister claim that unacceptable delays arose from that procedure when the UKIAS has always dealt with matters extremely promptly and without any criticism from the department?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I shall try to answer detailed points put to me by noble Lords in this debate when I come to wind up our discussions today.

As I said, the Government's objectives are to adapt the system to meet the new problems and the new situations that have emerged. The discussions would clearly need to take into account the impact of this Bill on the number of asylum applications made at the ports. But I hope it might prove possible to devise an arrangement in consultation with UKIAS that would enable cases of port asylum applications to be referred to it, and if necessary dealt with quickly. That indication will, I hope, help your Lordships in considering the wider issues surrounding this Bill.

We recognise also the concern that has been expressed about the effect of this Bill on the position of genuine refugees. But I have to say that Mr. Levin's comments in today's Times, by reaching inflamatory heights unusual even for him, have done nothing to assist your Lordships' considerations. He has shown little understanding of the problem of refugees today and no grasp of the essentials of the operation of this country's immigration control. This Government are not about to renege on our commitments under the UN convention to share with others in offering help to genuine refugees. This country has a fine reputation for offering a home to refugees and I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue with that tradition.

But Mr. Levin, and perhaps others, have dangerously confused the genuine refugee with the many others who would like to come here. An immigration control which allows the one to claim to be the other is no form of immigration control at all and does no service to genuine refugees. It is nonsense to suggest, as does Mr. Levin, that someone's whole need for asylum should be based on whether or not they can have a valid passport. Mr. Levin has totally failed to keep up with the current situation as it affects refugees. For him nothing has changed in the past 50 years but the depth of the glow he gives to a misremembered past.

The facts today are different. The reality is that this country is not the natural place of immediate refuge for today's refugees—that is a simple matter of geography. But as I shall show, genuine refugees who come here can obtain valid travel documents; and they can make proper arrangements for their travel. This country's reputation has been earned, not out of chaos at our ports, nor the ready acceptance of anyone who can contrive to arrive here, but out of responsible and careful programmes for helping in some of the main crisis areas of recent years. We shall continue with that tradition.

Almost all the major intakes of refugees to the United Kingdom since the UN convention came into effect have been carefully planned in advance. Refugees from Hungary in the 1950s, from Czechoslovakia in the 1960s, from Chile in the 1970s, and from Vietnam in the 1980s, have all come here under agreed arrangements and with the documents they needed for their journeys. They have been major beneficiaries of the UN convention and of the orderly programmes we have introduced. They would not have been affected in any way by this Bill.

The fact is that until recent years over 90 per cent, of all applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were made by people who were already in this country on a genuine and properly documented basis, but who were unwilling to return to their own countries because of a change in circumstances there. They too will not be affected in any way by this legislation.

A very much smaller number of people find temporary refuge in other countries and apply at British posts abroad to come here as refugees. All such applications are referred to the refugee section of the Home Office before a decision is made. People may be admitted if their claim to asylum is well-founded and if we are satisfied that it is right for us to accept responsibility for them. They will not be affected in any way by this legislation since they would be issued with the necessary papers to travel here before they embark.

The same is true of groups for whom special arrangements are made for them to leave the country—for example, 4,000 Chileans in the 1970s, and more recently, Vietnamese refugees who have close relatives here. We have also made special provisions for Sri Lankan Tamils. They may obtain a visa in Colombo if they are suffering severe hardship and have ties with this country. Again none of those groups will be affected in any way by the Bill.

The same is true also of refugees from eastern European countries, who travel here under agreed arrangements and with the documents they need. They too would not be affected in any way by this Bill.

I do not deny that the Bill may affect some people who would like to come here but for whom this country is not the proper country of refuge. There are undoubtedly large numbers of people all over the world who flee their home country because of this situation—people, for example, fleeing from the war in Afghanistan, or from El Salvador, or from Iran or Iraq, or from any other area where there is conflict. But that is not to say that they must come here. Nor is it to say they are refugees within the term of the UN convention. This country cannot be regarded as the only and right refuge for anyone in the world who wishes to leave his home country. In most cases, safe refuge can be found in a neighbouring country. From there, those with a claim to come here can make application to obtain the documents they need.

Our ports cannot therefore be the main places for large numbers of undocumented people to make claims for asylum. Yet the number of asylum applications at our ports has risen markedly from about 400 in 1984 to over 1,800 in 1985. In these years very few were granted refugee status. It is quite possible that some of those who were accepted as refugees did not have the documents that this legislation would require them to have. But it does not follow from that that this was the right and only country of refuge for them, or that they could not, if they had wished, have obtained the proper documents before they came here. And it certainly does not follow that we should leave such a large loophole in our immigration control just so as to preserve the options for a very few.

There may of course be exceptional cases where a genuine refugee is simply unable to get the proper documents before he travels and this country is the right and only practicable haven for him. Such desperate cases are likely to be really very rare; but of course if the person were carried and had to be brought here the Home Secretary would naturally consider carefully whether or not to use discretion not to charge the carrier.

That brings me to considering the effect of this Bill on the carriers themselves. I was glad to see the sensible and responsive approach that airline companies in particular have made to the new legislation. I recognise, however, that ferry companies have expressed considerable concern about the practical affects on their operations. The Government recognise that concern; but we are convinced that the practical problems can be overcome once the Bill has been properly understood and if any problems are tackled with a measure of goodwill and determination. And it is in our view essential to cover shipping if this legislation is to work effectively and if it is not just to lead to a transfer of pressure from our airports to our seaports.

Every major country in the world which has introduced carrier sanctions, (including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and West Germany) has reached the same conclusion and included shipping in its provisions. The Belgian legislation currently under consideration also includes shipping, and we understand that the Dutch proposals are likely to do so as well,

It would be still less sensible for this country to exclude shipping from the arrangements since shipping is responsible for 30 per cent, of the passenger traffic into this country. To exclude this large number of people would leave a huge gap in the arrangements. It would mean in practice that anyone who managed to get himself to a seaport or to get to Europe and travel to a Channel port could seek to come to this country without documents.

Your Lordships may have seen reports that the ferry operators have been told that French law does not allow carriers to check the identity of their passengers on French territory. That is not my understanding of the position. We have had authoritative advice from the head of Air and Border Police Headquarters for France that it is indeed possible under French law for a passenger to be required by the conditions of sale of his ticket to present to the carrier in France the travel documents required to allow entry to the United Kingdom. I believe this substantially deals with the application of the French law and removes that particular problem.

We are not yet at the stage in the Community where our control arrangements are fully harmonised and, like our other partners, we need therefore to maintain our immigration controls for travel from within the Community. Indeed it would be unfair to expect our partners to face the full brunt of pressure from undocumented passengers wanting to get to the United Kingdom, given the heavy pressures which many of them already face.

Nor would it be prudent to exempt travel by air or ship from the Republic of Ireland or other parts of the common travel area. We do not know where the pressure will next come from and it is only responsible to ensure we have available the powers necessary to respond. But we recognise the problem of travel from the common travel area and can assure your Lordships, as we have today assured Sealink, that we shall operate the powers sensibly and with discretion. In present circumstances we would not normally expect to impose a charge on a carrier for travel from within the common travel area.

We accept that the effect of the provisions may well cause the ferry operators additional work. But we believe that the problem is not nearly as great as they fear. Eighty per cent, of the people arriving here on the ferries are either British citizens, other people with right of abode or European Community nationals exercising their right of free movement under the treaty. None of them is even covered by this legislation since none requires leave to enter this country. The great majority of such people will therefore require only the briefest of checks to see that they appear not to be affected by the legislation. Of the remaining 20 per cent., all the carrier needs to do is to ensure that they have what looks like a valid passport and a valid visa where this is necessary. Carriers do not have to decide whether a person is entitled to settlement. They only have to see that the visa which a visa national requires is in the passport.

We are of course very ready to offer carriers, both shipping and airlines, all the help they need to operate these provisions. The immigration service has already had extensive contacts with airlines and shipping companies and their representatives and has made it clear that it is ready at all times to provide guidance and assistance. A video, slides and other material have been prepared both about our documentary requirements and what to look out for. We shall continue to do all we can to help the carriers to understand and deal with the Bill's provisions. I hope that the ferry operators will come to see the need for this legislation and that they will react positively to it, as the airline carriers already have.

The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the requirements approved by Parliament are adhered to. We should be failing in our duty if we were simply to ignore the abuse of our immigration control that has been so evident at the ports in the last few moths. We need to act quickly to respond to the problem and to ensure that the control operates as Parliament intended.

The proposals in this Bill are already proving their worth. In the three months prior to the introduction of the provisions on 5th March there was an average of 60 asylum-seekers a week at our ports. Since 5th March this has dropped to an average of 15 a week. The Bill is therefore already proving to be a good solution to a real problem. It is in short a simple, effective and necessary provision which deserves the support of this House. I commend it to your Lordships.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Beaverbwok.)

7.44 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the House will have sympathy with the Minister, who has been dealing with the very materialistic subject of banking in assisting his noble friend and now has to move to a humanitarian subject when moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I congratulate him on the clarity with which he denned the objects of the Bill, but he will not be surprised, having regard to the debate that took place on the Statement which was repeated in this House when the Bill's purpose was announced, if I tell him in forthright terms that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as wanting in mercy and understanding, contrary to our best traditions, ill thought-out and conceived in an unnecessary panic.

I think we have to get our perspective right. The noble Lord the Minister was very frank and he said that this Bill had been thought of by virtue of the numbers of refugees clamouring at the gates of this country and of many other countries—what a comment, I say in parenthesis, upon the state of the world; not upon the conscience of the refugees but upon the conscience of the world, and of the free world, in endeavouring to assist the victims of tyranny.

The Minister said that a great number had come without proper papers over the past few months. He included in a very dramatic way the story of the 64 Tamils who arrived in February. He said their cases were being given consideration and that it would not be proper, while the matters were being considered by the Minister, and also by UKIAS, for him to make any comment. I must make a comment, and it is a perfectly proper one. The Minister of State in another place on 17th February, as recorded in the Official Report at cols. 669 and 770, explained that the 64 Tamils came here and they were manifestly bogus: I quote his words. They are not refugees, he said equally definitely; and if he had had his way they would have been sent back immediately without any review of their cases at all.

By the grace of providence and in accordance with the great traditions of this country and of our law, there was a remedy against that hasty and inhuman action: that was the remedy of judicial review. Our judges decided that the Minister had not behaved properly in this matter and had not abided by procedures. Are the Government now endeavouring to alter those procedures so that there will not be a chance again of a Minister being corrected on judicial review? If I may, I will go into that matter a little later.

The noble Lord the Minister referred to our great tradition in dealing with refugees from persecution. He was right to do so, because in the last part of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century until very recently our head was held high among the nations of the world because of the way in which we opened our gates to those who needed it because of the persecution they suffered, for one reason or another, in their own countries.

But is there a situation like that now which we ought to be considering? I looked at the last figures that were published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and your Lordships may like to hear what those figures are. For the first six months of 1986, Britain took just over 1,000. There were 80,000 admitted into the whole of Western Europe. Denmark took over 3,000—three times more than we did. Germany took 42,000. I mention these figures not because I feel that there ought not to be immigration control. We on this side have always said that, unfortunately, we have to agree to immigration control for many reasons. But do not let us think—because it would be hypocritical—that we are dealing in latter years with figures which show that we in this country have been much more generous than other countries in Western Europe. We have not, and I have produced the figures to show it.

I find myself in a great difficulty in this respect. Nobody on any side of this House would for one moment want to protect in any sort of way from fines, and from any other punishment that can reasonably be accorded, those carriers who profit from misery—not one of us. Not one of us would want to try to persuade this House to allow into our immigration control numbers those who are bogus refugees. That is not in any way an argument that I want to put to your Lordships tonight. I am pleading for the genuine refugee and I am saying to this House that this Bill makes the task of the genuine refugee, in all his misery, a great deal harder than he ought to be asked to bear. That is my case.

The Minister posed a question to the House as to whether we would not agree that refugees from persecution can perfectly easily obtain genuine passports and genuine documents. He implied by that that there should be no difficulty whatsoever, whether it was in Eastern Europe, whether it was some tyrannical regime under which the unfortunate refugee lived.

There was a different answer in the other place and the Minister must have missed it. At col. 783 of the Official Report of the other place of 16th March 1987, one of his honourable friends asked this question of the Minister. Mr. Andrew Rowe, the honourable Member for Mid-Kent asked: It would be of great help if my right hon. and learned Friend could assure me that if a refugee from Soviet Russia arrives with forged papers—often that is the only way that a refugee can arrive—those papers will not be an automatic reason for refusal of asylum". The Minister of State replied: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking". That reply meant that there was an acknowledgment that it was very often impossible to get out if you did not have a forged passport, and very often extremely difficult to get other papers that might be necessary.

That immediately poses the question which I ask of the Minister: if there are so many countries, certainly behind the Iron Curtain, where it would be impossible to get out without forged papers, who is going to take the genuine refugee? How is he to get to these shores? If a carrier is in the slightest doubt about the penalties that are brought upon him by this Bill, what carrier will take even the person about whom he is in the slightest degree doubtful? He has to know, his employees have to know—and they may be in many countries of the world—which countries demand visas and in what circumstances.

The noble Lord the Minister knows as well as I do that our own arrangements in regard to visas are highly complex. We have all sorts of British nationals now. Some of them have a right of residence, some of them have not. There are other people with British ancestry who may or may not need visas and those complex regulations will obviously mean—and I ask the noble Lord the Minister to be sincere in giving his answer—that we are trying to keep the number of people genuinely seeking asylum to an absolute minimum and we are doing it by this Bill.

If there were good faith in the Government, I would ask for agreement to the following proposals. First, there was the recommendation of the home affairs sub-committee—the sub-committee that deals with refugees and so on—that there should be a right of appeal. They said that for a proposed immigrant who came to this country pleading that he was a refugee there should be a right of appeal against refusal. The answer of the Government was that that would not be necessary because there were safeguards. The safeguards were, first, that there would be the review by the UKIAS; and, secondly, there would be the right of representation by a Member of Parliament which would stop the enforced exit of that applicant for our mercy, pending consideration of his case, or there would be a judicial review.

At least two of those safeguards will be weakened, if not cancelled completely, and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was endeavouring to put to the noble Lord the Minister, it looks as though the UKIAS, which has been ready to assist refugees every day and at all hours of the day, has also been ready for these consultations with the Home Office. Why have the consultations not been started? The only excuse was that they had to be considered consultations. Why have they not been started, so that the House could be told quite frankly on the Second Reading of this Bill in the Upper House, after it had passed through the Commons, that consultations have started and are going well and that offers have been made to the UKIAS in this connection?

Will the Minister now state that there will be the right of appeal, provided an appeal can be speedily arranged, so that the hopeful immigrant may have that right? Will the Minister assure the House that within the immigration regulations there will be, at our various posts throughout the world, facilities given for applications to be made for refugee status? Will that be done within the immigration rules or will the provision still apply that you cannot ask to be admitted as a refugee until you get to these shores?

That brings with it the vicious circle—and I call it that because it is one—that you cannot get to these shores unless you have papers and a carrier who is prepared to take you in spite of all the risks that your papers, as a result of not being complete, will get him a fine. In regard to the carriers, will the Government show fairness by saying that there is a right of appeal, so far as the carriers are concerned, against the liability of a fine? Are they going to agree at Committee stage to various amendments that must be put forward in order to give the carrier proper protection?

If there is sincerity in all this, the Government will answer hopefully when the Minister comes to reply. But the House cannot be happy with this Bill. It is not in accordance with our glorious history.

8 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his concluding remarks and in almost everything else he said. It is a sad day for the refugee community of the world and for the traditions of Great Britain, as it is for the Community of Europe, on whose example we are now attempting to proceed. The Minister has repeated some of the arguments given by the Secretary of State in another place, relying very heavily on the fact that other countries have introduced legislation such as this and maintaining that, if we do not do the same, then, in effect, we will have to take into our immigration control procedures the huge numbers of people he alleges are now flooding into Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere.

Coupled with the fines levied on the carriers, there has been the diminution of the rights of appeal of applicants for asylum coming to these shores. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to answer the questions that I shall put to him. If the procedures for reference to UKIAS have been working perfectly satisfactorily over the years—and we have no reason to suppose that they have not—why enter into these discussions to water them down, even though I am delighted to have the assurance that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is involved in the discussions?

The Minister probably does not remember this, but some years ago when Mr. Jean Heidler was the UNHCR representative here, he tried to persuade the Home Office and some of us interested in these questions, that there should be formal statutory rights of appeal as there were at that time, for example, in Canada and certain other countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, it was because the Government persuaded us that other methods were available in this country that we did not pursue the suggestion. Because we had the UKIAS refugee unit, which acts on behalf of refugees with such great assiduity; because its officers were available at all hours of the day and night to take into their care the applicants arriving at ports outside normal office hours; and because we had the system of representations by Members of Parliament which has been progressively watered down since then, we did not need formal statutory rights of appeal.

I can understand the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State that if we did this, we would encourage a lot of other people not even remotely qualified to use an application for asylum as a means of delaying their departure who would go into the appeal system if they had that right. I agree that there would then be the danger that people who had been here for some months might be more difficult to remove to the country from which they came.

The Secretary of State also claimed, and the Minister repeated this evening, that until recently 90 per cent, of asylum applications were submitted by people who had already entered the country on a genuine, legitimate and properly documented basis, whereas now the majority of applicants apply at ports of entry. If a right of appeal were extended to those claimants, it is argued that there would be a big increase in totally unfounded applications. It would also mean, where asylum was ultimately refused, that a state from which the applicant had come might refuse to accept him back because of the lapse of time.

However, the Secretary of State said, and the Minister repeated, that genuine refugees could still come here in three ways. They could apply from British posts outside their home country if they had strong ties with Great Britain. A Tamil from Sri Lanka could apply at Madras or one of the posts on the Indian sub-continent or an Iraqi Kurd could apply from Iran. They could travel under special arrangements such as have been made from time to time in the case of Vietnamese or Chileans, which the Minister mentioned. They could arrive finally as individuals, like Anatoly Shcharansky or Irina Ratushinskaya. Both of those persons were in possession of valid passports.

At this stage, I should like to thank the Minister and through him the Minister of State for the arrangements made in the case of some persons who are viciously persecuted in the Soviet Union and who, although not refugees because they are still in the country of origin, nevertheless deserve the sympathy of the outside world and should be given the hospitality of a free country in which to exercise their proper rights and to develop their own and their family's personalities. I am particularly grateful to the Home Office and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for the assistance which they have given me in pursuing my invitation to the family of Lyudmila Yevsukova, whose father spent some considerable time in a psychiatric institution. When released, he had to be supported because he was too weak to stand by himself. Lyudmila's brother is still in a prison camp in Siberia where he was sent for refusal to accept military service. I sincerely hope that as a result of the British Embassy in Moscow indicating to Lyudmila and her family that they would be likely to receive visas if they were to apply, we may now be able to persuade the Soviet authorities to grant them a passport so they can leave and take up my invitation to come here and stay with me.

I return to the argument of the Secretary of State. The fact that other countries have passed legislation on these lines and that we are now doing so means that what we are entering into is a game of pass the parcel with people's lives. We are vying with other European and North American countries to exclude genuine refugees who manage to reach our ports of entry without proper documentation, as many of them do. I suggest the right answer would be to initiate discussions with other Community countries to see what measures could be taken in a properly co-ordinated manner to see that genuine asylum-seekers are identified and to ensure that the burden of looking after them is shared among the Twelve.

I was sorry to note that the discussions actually being held, to which the Minister referred this evening, concern only the introduction of carrier liability penalties throughout the Community and do not include any positive measures to assist refugees. I appeal to the Government to see whether we cannot evolve some positive as well as negative responses at Community level. I suggest to the Minister—and I should like his reaction—that the agenda for discussions with our partners in the Community might include improved aid to the main receiving states in other continents, such as Pakistan and Sudan, to help them cope with their refugee problems and better financial help from Community resources to member states which admit refugees. If there is a disparity of burden in this regard, then the Community should be the proper vehicle for taking care of it.

I noticed the Government Whip on the Front Bench shaking his head when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out that we were not as forthcoming in this regard as some other states in Europe; he mentioned Germany and Denmark in particular. These are matters of fact which are easily ascertained. If the Germans and Danes have received more refugees than we have, surely they should be helped from Community funds. On the other hand, if Britain has been as generous as the noble Lord thinks, we ought to have something out of the kitty. This matter could be properly discussed with our partners.

I accept that in previous years most applicants were people who had entered legitimately for some other purpose—for example, as students—but I would point out that technically asylum-seekers who came in as visitors or students and then declared themselves were in breach of the rules because they had omitted to disclose material facts to an immigration officer when examined at the port of entry. However, there were always some who claimed asylum at the ports, and most of those would not have had proper documentation.

I looked back at the figures of my own cases for the year 1983. Mr. David Waddington wrote to me on 2nd August of that year setting out the basis on which reference is made to the UKIAS refugee unit. In that year 30 cases were taken up with me, of which at least five—I say at least five because I am going by the fact that those five had port references on them—were port applications. I did not pursue 11 cases, which left 19 which I took up with the Minister. At least three of those 19 were port cases, which is a higher proportion than the Minister quoted, and all three were subsequently granted either asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Although the scale of the problem has no doubt increased markedly, the need to test claims made at the ports of entry has been there for many years. Indeed, that was the reason why the Minister wrote his letter in August 1983.

But let us consider the idea that refugees ought to arrive with proper documentation. The Secretary of State quoted only two very eminent Soviet dissidents, leaving one to infer, I suppose, that genuine refugees from other countries were also able to come here with their own national passports.

Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to the case of Abedon Tekle and Russi Ogbazghi, citizens of Ethiopia, who applied for asylum at the British Embassy in Prague and were told by the embassy, in refusing, that because they had no right to apply for asylum from outside the United Kingdom their appeal was bound to fail. Nevertheless, they submitted an appeal and in its decision the tribunal found—and I quote tribunal decision TH 127056/84(4417) 1986, March 11th: We do not consider that paragraph 73 of HC169 has any ambiguity in its restrictions of political asylum to those making their case when 'seeking entry at a port'. This Rule does not extend to applications at Embassies abroad". Thus apart from the exceptional cases about which we know of the Tamils and Kurds, whose applications may be considered by posts abroad if they have family connections here, nobody who escapes from a tyrannical regime can apply to come to Britain from a neighbouring state. If on the other hand the application is made from the person's own country, it is also bound to fail, because that person is not a refugee within the meaning of the convention being still inside his own country.

Suppose the asylum-seeker gets a passport and comes here ostensibly as a visitor. Then according to the Home Office his possession of valid documentation indicates that his claim must be spurious. I refer to the case of Mohammed Mahmud Idris, a citizen of Ethiopia, his wife and three small children, in which the Home Office statement to the adjudicator claimed—and I quote reference J187312: He had never suffered persecution or harassment and had been able to revalidate his passport without any problem. Similarly, his family living in Ethiopia did not appear to have suffered persecution or harassment for the past 20 years. Taking these factors into account, the Secretary of State was not satisfied", and so on. These factors included his possession of a valid passport, which was held against him before the tribunal.

On the other hand, if a person gets a passport by some irregular means, he is caught by another decision of an adjudicator, Mr. W. J. Coley, who ruled in the case of Miss Yemisrach Asfew—and this is reference TH17051/86: If she or her father bribed to obtain her passport… this would seem to be a breach of the general law, which is not a factor in political asylum applications". It seems to me, therefore, that we are left with only a handful of Soviet dissidents, and the groups which were allowed in under special programmes, and last of which as mentioned by the Minister, was the Vietnamese boat people. That programme was initiated about eight years ago—I know the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—and I am not aware of any new ones which have been initiated since then. It is now being suggested that the remaining Vietnamese in the camps in Hong Kong who await resettlement should be returned to Vietnam. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw that suggestion in an article in the Guardian, but while Britain retains nominal control of Hong Kong we are responsible for the safety and welfare of those people. I should be grateful if when he comes to reply he will give an assurance that we would not in any circumstances agree to a proposal that the Vietnamese refugees who are now in the camps in Hong Kong should be returned to their original country of origin. In fact I should like an undertaking from him that we shall have resettled the few thousand who are still in the camps before the handover of power to the People's Republic of China.

As far as we are concerned the convention will become a dead letter, because carriers are not going to incur the risk of £1,000 fines by accepting even those with manifestly genuine claims if they do not have proper documentation. If the passenger has no visa, the carrier would be put in the impossible position of having to evaluate the claim for asylum, and of course no airline would ask junior counter staff to do that. We have to assume that not only will this Bill become law but that the drawbridge is being pulled up all over Europe. In these circumstances, the best that can be hoped for is that some common effort might be made to alleviate the plight of refugees elsewhere, as I suggested earlier.

Are the Government prepared not only to boost their miserably small contribution to refugee programmes elsewhere but to take the initiative in organising resettlement in third countries of those at risk where they are in collaboration with our European partners? In 1986 we gave £500,000 to a special appeal by the UNHCR for the camps in Sudan, which amounted to 50p per person. What are we prepared to do about improved facilities for the education of children and young people from the camps in third countries? Have we asked the Egyptians, for instance, whether if the money was provided more places could be found at their universities and colleges for students from the camps in Sudan, Pakistan or Somalia?

What contingency plans do we have for groups of people whose problems have so far been ignored by the world community? There are some 900,000 Kurds and Iranians in Turkey, a country which is not a signatory of the convention and is locked in armed conflict with its own Kurdish population. What is to be done when the Iran-Iraq war comes to an end and there is a day of reckoning for the groups in each country which supported the other? What assistance are we offering to the 35,000 refugees from the Chittagong Hill Tracts in the Tripura state of India?

Unfortunately, the number of countries where people have a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion is not diminishing, and the number of people involved is probably greater than ever. The United Nations has not been effective in countering the gross violations of human rights which cause people to leave their countries. I am afraid that Britain has not raised her voice against the two powers whose conduct prompted most of the 800 arrivals here from December 1986 to February 1987—Sri Lanka and Ethiopia.

In the case of Sri Lanka, while President Jayawardene has expressed his willingness in principle to negotiate a political solution of the ethnic conflict, his forces in the north and east have behaved with extreme cruelty, murdering, raping and mutilating thousands of innocent civilians. The Derg in Ethiopia, supported by the armed might of the Soviet Union, has been engaged in a bitter and ruthless military operation against the people of Eritrea, and against its own subject peoples within the country. Yet these countries are under no pressure from the United Kingdom, in the United Nations or elsewhere, to desist from the policies which force people to seek refuge abroad.

It is not surprising that so many thousands have fled Sri Lanka and that hundreds of thousands have fled Eritrea and Ethiopia. Nor is it surprising that some of those people should seek to enter European countries, given that the alternative is to spend many years rotting in the camps of Sudan, Somalia or South India, as the case may be. They may have no rights to do so under the convention if they had already been admitted to one of those countries, or even if they had transitted one of them. I am not sure of the legal position in the case of India, which is not a signatory to the convention. To wash our hands of the whole problem, as the Government are doing apparently along with the rest of the first world is not in accordance with our great tradition of hospitality and support for the oppressed.

8.20 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, I rise to enforce briefly what has been said so ably and comprehensively by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Avebury. Indeed, they have covered between them so much ground in such great detail, including several points I wanted to make myself, that there seems little more for subsequent speakers to say.

Like both noble Lords, I consider this Bill to be unnecessary, unjust and contary to our great humanitarian traditions. It is of course greatly to be regretted that we fall so badly behind the United States of America, Canada, West Germany and other countries in the number of refugees we admit. My noble friend Lord Chitnis will enlarge upon that.

Speaking personally, I have in mind one particular case which was typical of many. It occurred about four or five years ago. I served for two years in Uganda and I was appalled by the sufferings of the people which greatly increased, of course, after Amin took over on 25 th January 1971. This particular case concerned a Ugandan who, under appalling persecution, fled from his country. Somehow he managed, without a visa, to get onto an aeroplane. I suppose he must have bribed the airline to take him. It was Uganda Airlines which was of course ready to accept bribes.

He arrived in this country in a state of great distress, as one can imagine. The Heathrow authorities did what they could. They got in touch with me. I saw him and I tried to persuade the authorities to let him in. They said, "No, it is quite impossible. He must go back." I then said, "Whatever happens, do not send him back to Uganda because if you do he will almost certainly be killed." I had heard that several other Ugandans who had arrived in similar circumstances had been killed on their return.

The Heathrow authorities, in consultation with the Home Office, arranged for this man to be accepted in Zambia, which one would consider splendid. However, they overlooked one important fact. The plane from Heathrow to Zambia called at Entebbe in Uganda. They presumably assumed that he would be all right. However, the authorities at Entebbe dragged him from the plane and imprisoned him. He would almost certainly have died in prison or been executed if he had not, by a miracle, escaped. That is the sort of situation which has been occurring.

If we give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading—as presumably we shall—and restrict the number of asylum seekers, surely as a corollary to this we must improve the arrangements for their reception, subsequent settlement and integration into this country. I give a few examples. In the first place, the Home Office acknowledges that it takes on average 53 weeks to deal with an asylum application. That figure was given to me by the British Refugee Council. However, many people have to wait for as long as 18 months and in some cases more than two years before their applications are processed. That is surely unacceptable, bearing in mind the stress that such waiting causes on top of the sufferings most of these refugees will have endured before reaching Britain.

In addition, as I am sure your Lordships know, many asylum seekers are being held in crowded and uncomfortable detention centres for long periods after their arrival. As refugees are, by definition, fleeing from persecution, the flight from their own country has been in most cases hasty and unplanned so they arrive here without adequate clothing. Moreover, they are totally unfamiliar with our way of life, our language, and so on.

The main burden of such cases falls on the Department of Health and Social Security which, it is accepted, generally copes as well as it can. I have seen instances of this myself. However—and this is a most important point—neither the system nor its individual members of staff are equipped to deal with the special needs of refugees. To take one example, medical and psychiatric care are both very important—particularly the latter—in view of the refugees' sufferings before arrival here. Those sufferings of course frequently include torture. As our medical services are geared to meet the needs of the majority they do not pay sufficient attention to the culturally diverse approaches to healing. There are also language difficulties and perhaps racism to contend with.

I give your Lordships an example: a Ugandan refugee who entered the country legally and to whom I gave asylum arrived in this country about two years ago having lost all his near relations, including both parents. I need not describe the state of mind of that man. The DHSS did what it could for him—all credit to the department—but he would have been almost unable to cope with the problems of obtaining supplementary benefit, rent allowance, and so on, without my help and despite the support he received from the British Refugee Council. I should add that he was also, quite unnecessarily, given a rough passage by the Metropolitan Police, who confiscated his watch for no apparent reason and failed to return it to him.

There is, of course, a big contrast between those refugees—we should say asylum-seekers—who come to this country and who have to fend for themselves and those who are lucky enough to be accepted under the auspices of the Ockenden Venture, Refugee Aid, and so on. I could give several such cases because I know a number of people at Ockenden. Most of these people have come over under arrangements made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

When I initiated the debate on refugees in your Lordships' House two years ago I described the care and compassion shown to refugees, mainly from Vietnam and Eritrea, at the Ockenden Venture homes at Haslemere. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is closely connected with that magnificent institution, if one can call it that. After only six months or so such refugees begin to feel at home. An immense amont of care is taken over their welfare. They are allowed to pursue their own cultural pursuits, but every effort is made to integrate them into the local population. They go to local schools and pick up English in a very short time. In my view, those arrangements are wholly admirable. The great pity is that such arrangements cannot be extended to other refugees.

To conclude, whatever our policy in regard to asylum: seekers, we must at the same time give greater care, thought and a larger sum of voted money for arrangements for the reception and aftercare of such people.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I support the principle of this Bill as the only reasonable, appropriate means with which to deal with the conduct of the unscrupulous characters condemned so rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, three speeches have been made and, with respect to the noble Lords who have made them, I hope to show that they are wide of the point owing to genuine misconception. I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me for a moment while I seek to explain why I think so. This is purely a personal assessment.

The object of this Bill, which, let us not forget, builds on existing requirements as to carriers' sanctions, is to curb abuse where those who need visas for entry as immigrants ignore the requirements, arrive without any documents or with fake documents and then claim asylum as refugees under the convention. The qualification "refugees under the convention" is of crucial consequence because it is very strictly interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the convention.

Let us not pretend that this has not now become an international problem of considerable magnitude which has already attracted many governments both in the European Community and elsewhere throughout the world, as my noble friend the Minister mentioned. Perhaps it was the 64 Tamils who drove the last nail into the coffin of abuse. So be it. The case is sub judice, as I understand it, and I have nothing more to say about it here.

I should like to try to deal with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is not in his place, and, as I understand it, by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Although I could understand the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I did not agree with it. But I could not understand the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, save that he adopted the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and therefore I shall try to deal with both together.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that this carriers' Bill was contrary to mercy and understanding; contrary to our traditions. I do not know how that can be said. The 1971 Immigration Act came into force and stood for many years under a Labour adminstration. I think that, as the noble Lord accepts, the broad system of immigration and refugee status has never been called in question under either administration. With respect, I do not understand how the noble Lord could say that this carriers' Bill, which is built on to existing requirements, if I have it right, is not in accordance with our glorious history.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, will give way, since he mentioned my name in the argument. Perhaps he did not understand me, but would he deal with the point which I make? I was concerned with the genuine refugee who could not obtain a proper passport or proper papers. Would the noble Lord not agree that the cautious carrier would say if there was the slightest degree of doubt, "I am not taking you"?

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord but I cannot deal with all his telling points at once. I have that one on my note to be dealt with later. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am dealing with the point he took about 10 minutes over before the one he mentioned. I therefore cannot see how the noble Lord can say that this carriers' sanction built on to an existing carriers' sanction is not in accordance with our glorious history. I know perfectly well that this is an emotive subject and I shall not add to the emotive content although I care very much about it, as do all noble Lords in this House, no more and no less than I. However, I think one must keep one's feet on the ground and look at the Bill as it stands in its context.

We should realise that the existing system, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not under question, as I understand it. There are no intentions to revise it and I shall come to this later. One must regard this Bill quite objectively as an adjunct to an existing sytem which has worked fairly well—no system ever works perfectly—under both administrations.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave a most interesting dissertation upon the refugee problem from which I personally benefited. He said it was ignored by the Western world and a series of specific assurances was sought, a series of undertakings and special cases was sought. My noble friend the Minister would have to tell us what we must ask the Egyptians, what about Iran, what about Iraq, what about Chittagong. With no disrespect to the noble Lord, I found it virtually impossible to follow the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned when he sought assurances, we are not discussing the system as it is but the adjunct to the system. What Chittagong, the Egyptians, Iran and Iraq have to do with the imposition of this carriers' Bill on the system totally defeats me.

At all events, I hope your Lordships will not yield to the blandishments of Bernard Levin in The Times today to which my noble friend the Minister referred. He urged your Lordships to take this Bill away and cut its throat. First, it would be a breach of constitutional convention not to afford a Bill which comes from another place a Second Reading, certainly a Bill of this importance. Secondly, his attack upon the Bill as dishonest and cowardly, as blurring the distinction between an immigrant and a refugee is fundamentally flawed. As in the case of all four of his criticisms, his argument betrays a misunderstanding as to how our system on immigration and asylum works.

The magnitude of this misconception precludes any objective analysis as to the incidence upon our system of the provisions in this Bill and it is this matter which is before your Lordships. If the question—and this is the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is whether this Bill could adversely affect any immigrant or refugee who in good faith seeks entry into the United Kingdom, my answer is no, it does not. It does not make it harder. That is the sole ground of the noble Lord's case and that is where we join issue. If the question is whether certain additional administrative costs will be incurred by the carriers, the answer is yes; but this is wholly justified and entirely reasonable, even if reflected in some slight increment in fares.

There is no doubt that this Bill is not only relevant but requisite. Assertions to the contrary by the British Refugee Council, Sealink, United Kingdom Limited, noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and others, betray a defect in the reasoning process not only as to how the system works but as to the incidence of the provisions of this Bill upon the system. There is no time in which to explain the system but it works under the split administration. Certainly as regards immigration it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act and rules as a matter of discretion and subject to control as regards approach by the courts under judicial review. As far as I am aware there is no question of altering that procedure.

As regards asylum, this arises under convention as recognised in the immigration rules. Here again the question of approach is of consequence. In a very recent case the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House said that if the Secretary of State asked himself the right question—that is, whether as a matter of degree the danger of persecution is sufficiently substantial as to involve a potential breach of article 33 of the convention—then the courts would not interfere with the way in which he uses his discretion. Again there is no question of altering that situation.

As to the provisions of the Bill, it is fair to assert that anyone who in good faith seeks entry into the United Kingdom as an immigrant or as a refugee will have some document that satisfactorily establishes his identity, nationality or citizenship under Clause l(l)(a). The broad drafting of that clause seems to me to be wide enough to include even a stateless person and there is always the discretion of the Secretary of State. If the person is not a refugee seeking asylum under the convention but is an immigrant—a matter on which the carrier may make simple inquiry before the passenger boards the ship or aircraft, or even when on board—he must also have a valid visa for entry under Clause l(l)(b). The duty on the carrier is one of inquiry and the production of documents which, if he performs it, absolves the carrier from liability under Clause 1(2). I do not take the point that carriers will be reluctant to carry such passengers.

I think that the provisions of Clause 1(2) afford a safeguard and there is the additional safeguard to the carrier under Clause 1(4). How else may this evil traffic, this lucrative trade that feeds on faint hope and false promises, which at times—and all too often—is fed by the spectre of persecution, to be curbed?

It is all too apparent, as envisaged by Clause 1(2) that £1,000 may not be an adequate deterrent. I quote from page 2 of an undated Sealink document that was addressed to me; it is signed by Maureen Tomison, Group Director, Communications: Having listened very carefully to all the reassurances from the Minister and his officials, we are led to the conclusion that the ferry companies would find it cheaper, more competitive"— that is nice, is it not?— and much easier to ignore the legislation and pay the fines". That is a fine kettle of fish.

In conclusion, the principle of this Bill, which has already attracted the attention of other governments as an adjunct to their domestic régimes on immigration and asylum, could well be reflected in a directive of the Council of Ministers in implementation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in order to harmonise the disparity that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or perhaps in a wider Council of Europe convention or even a United Nations convention.

In its true perspective this is not a national but an international problem which can be resolved only by the reciprocity accorded by convention and comity. No state can accommodate all immigrants or all refugees who seek entry, and the unscrupulous carriers who traffic in human misery, transporting such people for gain, but for this Bill will continue to select and exploit entry into the United Kingdom. Why?—because the advantages of our welfare state bolster the extra profit on the travel fee.

As I see it, pending resolution of such abuse by comity or by convention, this Bill is a requisite adjunct to our domestic system, affording an essential safeguard for our national interests. We must remember that the safeguard is subject to the superimposition of the jurisdiction of the Court and the Commission of Human Rights and that in these cases the United Kingdom Government always follow the decision of the Court. For example the Amerkane case No. 5961/72 is of particular importance on asylum, the question of asylum which is being considered by your Lordships' House tonight.

I apologise for making the longest speech that I have ever made in your Lordships' House. I think I can say no more.

8.47 p.m.

Lord Chitnis

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, ended with an apology. I think I must start with an apology to him and perhaps to your Lordships' House because I fear that I suffer from the same defect in the reasoning process of which he accused the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster.

When I became chairman of the British Refugee Council a few months ago I thought that one of my first actions might be to read the basic text on which the post-war world's attempts to solve the refugee problem are founded. The Minister started by referring to the United Nations Convention on Refugees and Stateless Persons. It says precisely—and it is what the British Government of the day quite voluntarily agreed to—that the: grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries, and … a satisfactory solution of a problem … cannot therefore be achieved without international co-operation". The final act of the conference which produced the convention went on to recommend that: Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international co-operation". That is what Britain agreed to, and voluntarily agreed to. Even today Britain sits on the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees charged with the implementation of the convention. However, it seems to me to be quite clear that, despite the assurance of the Minister of State in the other place—and indeed the Minister here tonight—Her Majesty's Government are determined to honour their obligations under that convention, the Government do not want to live up to its requirements.

There is as evidence of this, first, the tone of the Minister's speech tonight. There is the introduction a few months ago of the visa requirements for certain countries. There is the alarming increase in the number of asylum seekers in detention over the past year. Then there is this Bill. It seems to me that, if the Government wanted to renounce their obligations, it would have been more straightforward, particularly for a Government like this one who have tried to teach the British people, as they say, to face up to unpleasant realities, to do so directly and to renounce the convention rather than introduce little Bills and little measures whittling away at their obligations. They can do so. Article 44 of the convention says that any contracting state may denounce the convention at any time by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Thus the Government are entitled to renounce or denounce the convention.

There is, however, just one snag, I think. Other countries that are trying to do their best to cope with the worldwide problem of 30 million refugees—who will not go away, whatever the British Government say or do—might find it rather puzzling if Britain were to do so. After all, Britain is one of the richest countries in the world. I listened to the Chancellor in his Budget speech quoting Britain as currently having the longest period of steady growth since the war. In any case, I need not labour the point. If Britain is not a prosperous country, if the economy is not healthy, no doubt the noble Minister will correct me.

Britain is not one of the most densely populated of the countries that have been receiving refugees. Leaving aside the rather obvious case of Hong Kong, West Germany, for example, which has a greater population density than this country, has taken more refugees than Britain. Indeed, in terms of numbers, Britain is not as other speakers have said, the country that has taken in most refugees in the recent past, whether in the developed or developing areas. To listen to the Minister, one would have thought that this country was being swamped by large numbers of people seeking asylum.

If I may add to the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the past five years Pakistan has received 2,702,500 refugees, to the extent that one person out of every 32 in Pakistan is a refugee. In the same period West Germany has taken in 50,050, whereas the United Kingdom—and I count in this refugees and those who have leave to remain—has taken in 15,000. I realise that these figures exclude the Indo-Chinese quota, but West Germany has taken more than twice as many of them as Britain has—27,500 as against 13,000.

Interestingly, I think, this is what gives the lie to the Government's argument that it is not wrong to introduce a carrier's liability because so many other countries—the United States and so forth—have introduced it. What the Government fail to recognise is that those countries have done far more to take in refugees than Britain has. Whereas it may be possible for a country that has been seen to be doing its bit in this matter to introduce such legislation, it is certainly not right for this country.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, what the noble Lord is really saying is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in implementing the convention on refugees is wrong, but that surely is not the issue in debate upon the Bill. As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government conform to the convention. Putting aside whether Her Majesty's Government do or do not, will not the noble Lord agree that it is manifestly apparent that the abuse of any domestic regime is unacceptable in the same way that this has been recognised in four other states of the European Community and throughout the world?

Lord Chitnis

My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the noble Lord's point. I suspect that, in so far as I do, I was coming on to that and the particular point of the Bill in what I am about to say.

All I was trying to do earlier was to point out that, despite this being a rich country, despite having the space, relative to the other countries that have taken in refugees, and despite not having done its share in trying to cope with the international problems of refugees, Britain appears to want to stop genuine refugees coming into the country—because that will be the effect of the Bill.

The Bill is not particularly to stop the bogus refugees, it is not particularly aimed at the racketeers—and, remember, it is the racketeers who are the real criminals in this, not the innocent airlines, which may be duped. The bogus refugees could have been stopped without the Bill.

What the Bill will do is to make it difficult, almost impossible, for genuine refugees to come to the country. What I should like the Government to do in winding-up is to spell out precisely what refugees the Government will accept in the country, and how they expect them to get here when the Bill becomes law.

I am absolutely certain that we need a better answer than, "It can only be those refugees who have the proper papers", when, frankly, this regulation has been dreamed up in an office by someone who has no idea of the number of people who flee in terror for their lives. Secondly, we certainly need a better answer than, "Refugees can apply for permission to enter the country when they reach the first country of arrival".

On 27th March, 17 days ago, a woman from Sri Lanka with two children aged 2½ and 1½ turned up at Dubai airport. Today, 6th April, she is still in the transit lounge of the airport, from which she has not been allowed out. She has a husband living in this country as a legal resident. When she got to Dubai she did exactly what the British Government say people should do: she asked the British Embassy in Dubai for papers allowing her to come to this country. She was told that she could not have them and that she must go to Colombo and reapply there. It was not until there was intervention by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there was a stay of execution on returning this lady to Sri Lanka. The United Arab Emirates gave her until the end of today to get this matter sorted out. Her papers are still in London, so far as I know. Apart from anything else that the Government may say about the principles behind the Bill and so on, it would be nice to know before we leave here tonight that the woman and her two children trapped in a transit lounge at Dubai as a result of the actions or, rather, the inactions of the British Government are being taken care of.

In general, only when there is reassurance that the Government intend to continue to help genuine refugees as much as they can will opposition to Bills such as this be wrong. As it stands, and leaving aside the detailed practical objections to the Bill, it is sad and unjustifiable because of the hardship that it will cause genuine refugees.

8.58 p.m.

Lord Denning

My Lords, I am sorry to hear all these criticisms of the Government. If I may say so, I think that the Government have produced a good Bill to deal with a most difficult situation. I would support all that the Minister has said today for all these reasons. I speak from some experience. When I was Master of the Rolls, for some 12 years on Mondays we had three or four immigration applications before us, so I have followed the law on this matter all the way through.

Those people from far-off countries living in deplorable conditions with no social security and no employment look at the lovely land of England where there are human rights, security, social security and unemployment benefits, and say, "Oh, that is the place to go to". Then the racketeers come in: "If you pay us £10,000,—each of you—we shall see you into England". That is what they did.

Your Lordships may not remember but in 1974 we had the important case Ex pane Azam. It is reported in 1974 Appeal Cases at page 18. We then learned of the Bhagwan Gap which the racketeers had discovered, and which was declared to be legal by the House of Lords. It was a large gap and many people entered through it. It lasted from 1962 until March 1968. The racketeers seized hold of it. They brought plane loads of people from India or Pakistan into Holland or France. They would then say, "Follow us to that port, and we will get you a little boat. We will take you across the sea and land you." They did. They landed them on the seashore with no one to look after them. Those people were found afterwards with their trousers wet and so forth. In that way, they avoided all our controls.

Those people immediately went to their relatives or other people in Wolverhampton or wherever it was. They settled down and could not be found. The racketeers had found a gap in our immigration controls and were bringing those unfortunate people in in that way. That gap had to be stopped and it was stopped.

We now have another gap. The racketeers have found it. When there is a country like Sri Lanka in which there is civil strife, people say, "We are being oppressed." The racketeers say, "Those of you who have it, pay us enough money. For £10,000 we will look after you." Again with their aeroplanes they come over. The racketeers tell the people to claim political asylum. That is the new gap.

The figures that the Minister gave showed how the numbers soared when the gap was found. With the help of the racketeers, people were seeking to get through the political-asylum gap. That is the trouble. That is the mischief which the Government had suddenly to face. How was it to be dealt with? In the boat cases, it was said that the people who had the boats were as guilty as the people whom they carried. They carried them into England. Equally—I would not call them conspirators—the people who are bringing them into the country are turning a blind eye to what is happening. In other words, I am accusing the racketeers. I do not mind that, but this country must protect itself from people who abuse our system and our country in that way.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord, who advised so many in the courts over which he presided, and when he was an esteemed member of the Bar, advise the carriers, even if they thought that the person was a genuine refugee from persecution who did not have papers the absence of which he could explain, to run the risk of a fine of £1,000? That is the issue in this legislation.

Lord Denning

My Lords, I would let the carrier deal with the matter when told about it. It may be a proper case. He can say, "I do not mind taking your case over and putting it before the Home Secretary." That is the way to deal with such a case.

My next point relates to appeals. It must be recognised that in all these cases the decision is not a legal one. It is an administrative, executive decision in which, by law, the discretion lies with the Home Secretary. I shall read two extracts. The first one comes from the case of Azam. I shall read my judgment from page 34: In the circumstances Parliament, as I read the Act, has decided that illegal entrants can be sent back. It has entrusted this decision to the Home Secretary, and not to the courts. It has left it to his discretion. It is better left there because, after all, the matter is one of policy which the courts cannot handle. The Home Secretary can take into account all the circumstances. He has to weigh in the balance on the one hand the length of time the man has been here, and his conduct while here: and, on the other hand, the effect on our society if he and others like him are allowed to stay. This is not a justiciable matter for the courts. It is an administrative matter for the Secretary of State. That is what I ventured to say in 1974.

At the beginning of this year, the House of Lords had to reconsider the question of asylum. It was a case involving three people who came to this country and received leave to enter as vistors, students, businessmen or something else. After they had obtained entry, they changed their minds and said that they wanted political asylum. They admitted that they had told a lie in the first instance to get in. The House of Lords said that they could not stay after having got in in that way. I shall refer again to the courts' attitude to appeals.

At page 623 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said: The Act of 1971 does not allow the courts of this country to participate in the decision-making or appellate processes which control and regulate the right to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. This also is not surprising. Applications for leave to enter and remain do not in general raise justiciable issues. Decisions under the Act are administrative and discretionary rather than judicial and imperative. Such decisions may involve the immigration authorities in pursuing inquiries abroad, in consulting official and unofficial organisations and in making value judgments.". In other words, the courts are again stressing that they cannot consider this very important area. It is a matter that the Home Secretary and his advisers consider after full inquiries. That is why there should be no appeal. It may be desirable to have a reference—that is to be considered—after the first refusal, but that is another matter altogether. I would suggest that giving a right of appeal would mean not only many delays but, furthermore, it would not be the right way to deal with the matter.

I say that in support of the Government's Bill. Is this not the right way to deal with it, as they have said? Any person who comes with the proper documents—with his entry clearance, his visa in his passport, and the like—of course enters. But if he does not have the proper documents, what is to be done? At the moment the one sanction is that the airline or ship must see whether or not he has his proper documents. If he has his proper documents, all well and good. If he does not have the proper documents and they still let him in they have to pay £1,000.

My noble friend raises the point about the airline saying, "This is a refugee". If he were allowed in in those circumstances, there would be no demand for the £1,000. The matter would be overlooked or excused. This is being tested apparently in other countries. The one way to put a stop to all these people coming in claiming refugee status is to let the carrier make his own check. If the people have the proper documents let them come in; if not, refuse them for the time being. I support the Government completely in this Bill.

9.12 p.m.

Lord McNair

My Lords, in this House there is a very narrow line between courtesy and hypocrisy. I think that I should be crossing that line in the wrong direction if I were to thank the noble Lord for introducing this Bill, because frankly I wish that he had not. However, I recognise that he is acting under orders, being grossly overworked and only doing his duty as he sees it. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will accept that there is nothing personal about my ingratitude. When I first saw the Bill I immediately recalled the famous hackneyed phrase of Thomas Hobbes about the life of early man, because it fits the Bill exactly. It is poor, nasty, brutish and short. A more perfect example of the maxim—if there is such a maxim—"legislate in haste, repent at leisure", could hardly be found.

Let us look at this haste. Here is some remarkable chronology. It was on 1st March that the Prime Minister first mentioned that there might possibly be sanctions levied against airlines. On 3rd March came the Home Secretary's Statement in which he outlined plans to fine airlines, to dispense with referrals, to limit the rights of Members of Parliament to prevent explusions and indeed to implement quick deportations. On 4th March the Bill had its First Reading in the House of Commons, by which time it became apparent that it referred not only to airlines but to ships. This led to an agonised cry from the ferry operators. We have recently and tragically been reminded that the master of a ferry has no idea who is on his ship and who is not. In spite of what the Minister said, I have a letter from the French authorities at Calais—le police de l'air et des frontierŕes —which says very clearly that it would be illegal for any checks to take place on French soil.

Boats coming from Ireland are even more difficult because one does not need a passport. In the words of the late Cole Porter, all that you need is just a ticket. How will these controls be exercised on the shipping lines with Ireland? The right honourable gentleman, Mr. Waddington, has sought to reassure the shipping lines. He says that the Home Office will use discretion in imposing fines on ferry operators. What is this? Is this a nod and a wink? Is it a question of, "All right, we won't really do it"? Is this what we have sunk to in our legislation?

I was going to quote that paragraph which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, quoted but I shall not as he has already done so. Ferries are not my main concern, though I think they may turn out to be the Government's concern. I have already spoken about the obvious haste with which this Bill was cobbled together and the presumably unforeseen effect that it will have upon ferries. In spite of these imperfections I think it is possible to discern the intentions which lie behind the Bill. It is extremely important to distinguish between its intentions and its effects. If I have correctly understood the Bill's intentions as opposed to its effects, I have no objection to them. It is, is it not, a distressing fact, a very unappealing facet of our human nature, that wherever there is enough human misery to create a market there will be human vultures battening on it to make a profit?

The unfortunate Tamils, from whose plight this Bill directly descends, had paid huge sums of money to one of these racketeers. If the Bill were an effective way of putting that gentleman and his colleagues out of business, surely we should all applaud it. But this is where the distinction between the Bill's intentions and its effects becomes important. Who, after all, are the victims of these racketeers? To listen to Home Office Ministers one almost has the impression that it is we who are the victims. They are exploiting not the would-be asylum-seeker fleeing from God knows what. Oh no, they are exploiting our super-generous immigration provisions.

This is accompanied by much talk, which I personally find most distasteful, about "bogus" refugees. The fact that someone has fallen into the hands of a racketeer does not make him bogus any more than the fact that his papers may not come up to the exacting and bureaucratic standards of an immigration officer. Yet these allegedly bogus asylum-seekers are presented to us almost as if they were accomplices rather than the victims of a racketeer.

To see this question in this extraordinary crooked and twisted way seems to me to require some kind of intellectual squint which I find quite inexplicable. The definition of a refugee in the 1951 convention is very narrowly drawn. It is possible to be in a pretty desperate predicament without qualifying for full refugee status. In most such cases it has been our practice to grant what is called exceptional leave to remain. But what would be the effect of this Bill if we permitted it unamended to become law?

Let me read the first paragraph of a memorandum from the highly respected British Refugee Council, with which I am proud to be associated in a minor capacity and of which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, is such a very able and distinguished chairman. In measured and sober terms the first paragraph reads as follows: The Bill is bound to make it more difficult for refugees fleeing persecution, torture and death to arrange their flight from danger and present their case for refugee status in Britain. In some cases, it could result in individuals being returned to face death or torture in their countries of origin who would otherwise have reached this country and been granted refugee status. The Bill does not recognise the essentially unplanned circumstances of most refugees' flight". I repeat that last sentence. It: does not recognise the essentially unplanned circumstances of most refugees' flight". Indeed, it does not. What would probably happen would be this. The refugee would arrive somehow in this country. If his papers are not in order, and they probably will not be, then without any referral to the UK Immigrants Advisory Service, without any MP being able to intervene and with no access to any judicial review, on the word of an immigration officer alone he would be on the next plane back to whence he came and may God have mercy on his soul.

There are many details that I could discuss but there will be later stages and I do not wish to prolong this debate further. In conclusion, we shall of course give the Bill, disastrously ill-considered as it is, its Second Reading but only because of the miserable toothless way in which convention obliges us to behave in this House.

However, if the Bill eventually leaves this House in the same deplorable form in which it reached us, if we fail to ensure as a minimum that any deserving potential refugee will still have a fair opportunity to state his case for remaining in this once hospitable country, we shall have lowered the House in the opinion of the nation and of the watching world.

9.21 p.m.

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, we have had a full and careful debate on this Bill this evening. I have listened closely to all that your Lordships have said. Many interesting and valuable points have been made, and I shall hope to respond to as many as possible. But, fundamentally, I believe that none has undermined the clear argument I put to your Lordships earlier: the Bill is needed to maintain immigration control arrangements already approved by this House.

I fully understand the concern expressed by many of your Lordships this evening about the flight of refugees from oppression. The Government share that concern. We are fully committed to our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. This country is justly proud of our long tradition of accepting refugees from persecution. We shall continue to honour that tradition. I hope there will always be a welcome here for genuine refugees, and that we shall continue to extend our hospitality to them.

But that is not the same as saying that we must open our doors to anyone at all who wishes to come here to improve his lot. Successive governments have never thought it right to take that position, and neither do we. If there is a gap in the effectiveness of the immigration control, a responsible government must act to close it. That is what we have sought to do under this Bill. We must prevent large numbers of people who need visas arriving here without them and resisting return by claiming asylum. It cannot be right to let that continue in the face of Parliament's clear approval of the visa requirements.

I emphasise that this is not a problem faced by just this country: nor is it one where we are alone in introducing charges on carriers. Like other countries in Europe, we must protect a humane and open system for asylum from abuse, since this must stretch the hospitality and welcome of those already living here. The Bill needs to be seen in that wider context.

I turn now to some of the principal points which have been made about the effect of the Bill on genuine refugees. In doing so I ask noble Lords to recognise the real situation as it affects refugees and the role of this country and to put aside some of the more imaginative hypotheses which can be constructed. This country is not normally the first port of call for refugees fleeing from oppression in their home country. That is not a matter of humanity, but of geography. This country is a place of refuge for people unwittingly caught here by a change in circumstances at home. And it can continue to make a contribution to wider programmes. But that contribution is under threat from the type of abuse which is now apparent throughout Europe.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the problems for genuine refugees. But the fact that people claim asylum does not make them genuine refugees.

After all, most genuine refugees find safety in neighbouring countries rather than by making elaborate arrangements to travel halfway round the world. It is in the interests of the genuine asylum claimant to retain whatever papers he has, even forgeries, to assist in establishing his claim.

Of the very substantial increase in the number of applications for asylum at our ports of entry since 1985, only in a tiny proportion has refugee status been granted. It is of course possible that the measures in the Bill will make it more difficult for that tiny proportion to seek asylum here as opposed to a neighbouring country. However, that cannot be an argument against having sensible requirements and against charging airlines who do not observe them. Unless we can achieve some order in our refugee programme, it will become increasingly difficult to help the genuine refugees.

The noble Lord also mentioned the matter of a right of appeal for people who arrive here and are refused. That question was examined most carefully at the time of the sub-committee on race relations of the immigration inquiry into refugees in 1984 and 1985. The sub-committee recognised that there was a danger of an appeal system stimulating bogus applications. We could not accept the sub-committee's recommendation for an accelerated appeal system because we remained of the view that even if one were possible—and no comparable system appears to be operating successfully elsewhere—there remained a very real risk that such a system would have been abused. That view was taken in the light of experience of other countries in 1985. Nothing that has happened since has given any cause to change our view. Our original refusal to introduce special appeal rights for asylum seekers must stand, reinforced by more recent developments. I was most grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on this matter.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, he will remember that I quoted the safeguards that the Home Office then put forward as being a proper substitute for any right of appeal. Is he prepared to say to the House that the safeguards that the Government then mentioned will still be applicable?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I believe that the safeguards to which the noble Lord refers have been satisfactory. There appears to be operating at the moment when we consider the case of the 64 Tamils who arrived at London Airport—

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept—

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for one moment so that I can follow the point? The Minister is therefore saying on behalf of the Government that the safeguards which have operated safely and well up till now will still be maintained.

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I think that it might be better if I return to that point in one moment.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, will the Minister accept that under this legislation it is likely that those Tamils would not have arrived at London Airport at all because of the pressure on the airline not to carry them here?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I think that it is always dangerous to take a specific example to make a broader point. The problem of the Tamils at Heathrow Airport is still going on while their cases are being reviewed.

Perhaps I may return to the safeguards in a moment. I wanted to make a further point to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because he mentioned that the complexity of our visa requirements is causing difficulties. I believe that our visa requirements are clear and simple. If the nationality given in the passenger's passport is one of the visa nationalities set out in the immigration rules, then that passenger needs a visa. The carrier does not need to inquire into the purpose of the passenger's journey, and certainly does not need to consider the complexities of the nationality law.

I shall now return to the point about the safeguards and the referral system. As I have said, we have not yet had time to embark on discussions with UKIAS as to what form the relationship with them will take.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, does the Minister consider it profoundly unsatisfactory that we are expected to pass the Bill in two seconds, and the Minister tells us, for reasons which may be perfectly genuine, that the discussions with UKIAS have not yet begun? The House is not going to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on whatever conclusions are reached. Does not the noble Lord consider that quite wrong? What opportunity does Parliament have of approving whatever arrangements are ultimately made?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, as I understand it we are debating tonight on the Second Reading a Bill that relates to the charges on carriers. We are not having a general debate on the system for dealing with refugees.

I should like to give a fuller answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this point. The system was established in 1983 with the UKIAS in circumstances very different from those we have experienced over the past two years, and particularly over the past three months; and our objective in discussing the matter of UKIAS will be a modification of the system to meet the new problems that have emerged. In doing so, we shall obviously need to take into account the effect of this Bill on the number of asylum applications made at our ports. I very much hope that it will prove possible to devise arrangements in consultation with UKIAS which will enable cases of port asylum applications to be referred to them if necessary within short deadlines.

While I am on the subject of UKIAS, I should like to respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought up half way through my opening speech this evening; that of the availability of the UKIAS staff. We do not doubt their availability but the fact is that considerations on individual cases often take time. We hope we can devise a quicker process in some cases. But that is one of the subjects that we hope will be the subject of discussion with UKIAS. I welcome Lord Avebury's indication of UKIAS's attitude to establishing a speedy referral system.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought up the subject of the agenda on discussions with our European Community partners. I think that the best that I can say tonight is that I shall bring this to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I hope that I shall be able to give him an answer at a future time.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point about applications abroad to come here as a refugee. Very often where a would-be refugee has left his country of nationality he can, in that second country, apply at our nearest post to be allowed to come here as a refugee. He would be interviewed by the post which would then refer the application to the refugee section of the immigration and nationality department. Such an application would be sympathetically considered if it was judged that the applicant met the criteria for recognition as a refugee and that the United Kingdom was the most appropriate country of refuge. Particular regard would be paid to the strength of the applicant's ties with the United Kingdom and any other countries.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I apologise for interrupting him once again. I quoted the case of the Eritrean who applied at our consulate in Prague and who was told by the official to whom he spoke there that his appeal was bound to fail because of the application of the rules. Indeed, when it went to the tribunal they quoted a particular rule which meant that an application made for asylum in a third country was not to be entertained. Is the noble Lord now saying that there will be, as a corollary of these measures, an amendment of that particular rule?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would not expect me to comment in detail on these individual cases tonight. These arrangements have nothing to do with this Bill, but in wishing to be as helpful as possible I have answered, perhaps in part, the noble Lord's point by giving him the arrangements that are currently in force. I can assure your Lordships that the visa application system already caters for asylum-seekers and that asylum applications at our posts abroad are referred to the refugee section of the Home Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought up the question of Vietnamese refugees. I have noted most carefully the points he made about these refugees. The Government have already made an important contribution to this problem. We have accepted around 20,000 such refugees since 1975 and we are continuing our commitments to accept Vietnamese refugees under family reunion and rescue arrangements. I can tell your Lordships, however, that the Government hope shortly to make an announcement about our policy which I believe will be helpful in clarifying our proposals for the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked me whether this country could not make a greater contribution to the world's problem of international refugees. It is for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to have a central role in identifying problems and in co-ordinating the action, approaching possible resettlement countries as necessary. The answer must lie in careful preparation and planning and not in a chaotic scramble which threatens to overwhelm the immigration controls of many Western countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, asked about a case in Dubai. I answer him by saying that we agreed to consider any visa applications made by six Sri Lankan Tamils in Dubai. I understand that visa application forms have been lodged and that further information about the circumstances of this case is to be supplied by the United Nations high commissioner. As soon as that is received we shall consider urgently whether they should be granted visas to come here. However, I point out that those concerned could have applied in Colombo for visas to come here. We have a special provision for Sri Lankan Tamils to be given visas if they are suffering severe hardship and have family ties here.

I turn now to other points that have been raised. I ask your Lordships to recognise that the effectiveness of this Bill lies in its simplicity and its capacity to block loopholes and potential loopholes in our immigration controls. I believe that its comprehensiveness and simplicity are of central importance. I know that some of your Lordships are concerned about particular hard cases. We cannot reasonably or sensibly legislate for them all. Indeed, to do so would considerably weaken the Bill. But where genuine hard cases arise where it would clearly not be sensible to impose a charge, I can assure your Lordships that a charge will not be imposed. The Secretary of State will operate his discretion sensibly and will be able to deal practicably and reasonably with some at least of the concerns expressed by your Lordships this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the matter of airline appeals. We do not think it proper to provide a statutory right of appeal against the imposition of charges. If this were to replicate the immigration appeals procedure, it would necessitate unwieldy and expensive machinery. The powers are permissive rather than mandatory and the intention is that they should be applied sensibly and sympathetically.

The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked about the position of the common travel area, and in particular Southern Ireland. Very few people coming to the United Kingdom from other parts of the common travel area require leave to enter the United Kingdom. The imposition of charges places new burdens on carriers from within the common travel area. That is undoubted, but it is consistent with their present obligations that the new provisions should apply to them as they do to other carriers. To exclude travel from within the common travel area from these provisions would leave a very large loophole in the arrangements.

In conclusion, we cannot allow our immigration controls and our asylum procedures to be undermined by people who need visas to enter this country, but who come here without documents and then resist immediate return by seeking asylum. We must get back to an organised and orderly system for immigration and asylum, rather than the disorganisation and disorder which we have witnessed in the past few months. We must also take action to stop our ports being overwhelmed by people deliberately coming here without the right or indeed any documents whatsoever. The Government believe that this Bill represents a simple and sensible way of achieving these objectives. I invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes before ten o'clock.