HL Deb 13 November 1991 vol 532 cc562-4

3.2 p.m.

Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will consider the views of individuals and organisations on the Asylum Bill, given the lack of prior consultation and the short period between publication of the Bill and Second Reading in another place.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, we are always willing to consider representations from interested parties and will look carefully at their comments on the Bill.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. But does he agree that the absence of consultation was confirmed by the refusal of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service to fulfil the role proposed for it by the Government? Will Her Majesty's Government study with care the letter in The Times today by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster together with a full page advertisement by Amnesty International?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, of course we shall consider what was said by the most reverend Primate and the Cardinal Archbishop. Indeed, we shall consider anything which anyone else has to say. However, the Asylum Bill was not wholly unexpected. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a Statement on 2nd July in which he referred to the fact that there were enormous increases in the number of asylum seekers and that we intended to legislate on the appeals procedure. We are in regular contact with the organisations and we shall continue so to be.

Lord Irvine of Lairg

My Lords, do the Government admit that they did not invite interested parties to make representations? Why did they not do that and are they now satisfied that those organisations will be properly consulted and given a full and fair opportunity to make representations?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it is the Government's duty to propose legislation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he intended to do so. Those organisations are not usually slow in coming forward. The noble Lord says that there was no invitation to consult, but there was and still is every opportunity for consultation.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, is the noble Earl surprised that there is a great deal of feeling not just among organisations which represent refugees and asylum seekers—for example, the British Refugee Council and Amnesty International—but also among many individuals who care deeply about the principles involved in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees? Bearing in mind that this is an extremely contentious issue, possibly with racial overtones, does the Minister not realise that the past two or three weeks have shown a decrease in the number of applicants arriving at both airports and seaports. Does he also not think it wise to withdraw the Bill until after the election?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, no, I do not think so. The noble Lord asks whether I am surprised at the amount of feeling on this matter. I am not surprised at all. Anything to do with immigration or asylum understandably produces strong feelings. Therefore, it is not surprising. We are merely trying to ensure that those who—I do not say that they have a right because no one has a right to asylum—but those who are genuine asylum seekers will be treated properly and those who are not will not move in under that banner.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, in view of the urgency of the matter and the possible number of people seeking entry, will the Government proceed rapidly with the Bill and reject any suggestion that it should be deferred?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it is our intention to move rapidly. This Bill has already received its Second Reading in another place and it is not our intention that it should be deferred. Therefore, in those circumstances, not for the first time I concur with my noble friend.

Lord Richard

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a deep feeling in the country that there is unfairness in the rules which seem to be emerging on the way in which genuine asylum seekers can appeal? In particular, does he not accept that there is great anxiety about the fact that green form legal aid is to be withdrawn from people when they first arrive in this country and seek asylum? Is he aware that both the Bar Council and the Law Society have strong feelings about the issue? Does the Minister not believe that this is one matter on which the Government should think again?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the proposed changes to green form legal aid in immigration cases do not form part of the Bill. We are currently discussing with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service how the changes can best be implemented. We have made it clear that there will be no change in the present arrangements until suitable alternatives are in place.

Forward to