HL Deb 04 March 1993 vol 543 cc791-812

. In allocating resources to local authorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 the Secretary of State shall have regard to the number of relevant citizens and their dependants who are persons claiming or given asylum in the United Kingdom.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She is committed to an engagement and I am therefore acting as a very poor substitute for her. The amendment is simple in so far as what it wishes to do is to extend Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to a rather wider constituency than that for which it was originally devised. Section 11 was designed to help local authorities financially where there were substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants for whom special provision had to be made, much of it in the field of education—English language teaching and so on. It proved an extremely useful and constructive source of resources which was used in a very effective way.

The position that has arisen is one which we have discussed in earlier debates on the Bill. The patterns of migration have to some extent changed over the years and certainly the pattern of the flow of refugees has changed over the years. What we are now receiving and have been receiving is a substantial number of refugees from places which are not part of the Commonwealth. It was to migrants from the Commonwealth that Section 11 was originally confined. Then in the 1970s we saw Chilean refugees. Later we saw Vietnamese refugees, then refugees from the Middle East—Kurds, Iraqis and Iranians—and more recently refugees from Ethiopia, Zaire, Angola and Somalia. Still more recently we have seen refugees from Yugoslavia.

These people have settled largely in major towns or near airports and particular local authorities have had to bear the brunt of paying for the special services which they require and in particular for the kind of services which Section 11 used to support. I believe that no one who has had any experience of dealing with this kind of problem will underestimate its importance. Perhaps I may take as an obvious example English language teaching. If newcomers to our society are to get a job, use their skills, contribute to our society and live satisfactory lives with their neighbours, it is essential that they should learn the English language. That requires special provision, special courses and special expenditure. It is illogical that that expenditure should fall by pure luck on certain boroughs and local authorities rather than on others. For example, I refer to local authorities near airports and those in London such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Hillingdon and so on. One can identify them. Therefore they are under considerable financial pressure.

In this amendment all we are suggesting is that central government should take responsibility for the bulk of that financing, as I understand the refugee council has advocated for many years.

It is fair that the whole country should bear that cost rather than that it should fall quite adventitiously and fortuitously on certain places. That is the nub of the proposal. We know that this is not a new idea. In 1985 the Home Affairs Select Committee produced a report in which it made that recommendation. The Home Office itself carried out a review subsequently in which that proposal was examined and recommended, as I understand it.

Finally, as I further understand it, the refugee council received a letter from Mr. Peter Lloyd, who was the Minister at the time, saying that it was the Government's intention to extend the scope of Section 11 but that they could not find parliamentary time.

This is a probing amendment which is meant not merely to draw the Government's attention to something which we regard as rational, reasonable and helpful, but also to awaken them and sharpen them up. The probe is also intended to get this item higher on the agenda so that the Government do find parliamentary time to make this simple change which can only do good. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the case for this amendment has been very effectively argued. I bring to it only a certain amount of local knowledge in that I live in the London Borough of Haringey which has suffered for many years from the fact that Section 11 money and a considerable amount of determination of SSA has been directed towards people coming from the New Commonwealth in particular. However, in Haringey we have had successive waves of people—very welcome in many ways—from other countries outside the Commonwealth. We have had Kurds, Somalis, Eritreans, and we now have a considerable number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. As I say, they continue to make a valuable contribution to our community. However, they also stretch the limited resources of the local authority.

It would be of enormous help if the intention expressed by Mr. Peter Lloyd in the letter to the British Refugee Council of extending the terms of Section 11 of the 1966 Act to cover those of non-New Commonwealth origin, were now agreed to. I suspect that it is simply an oversight by the Government; that it was their intention all along to extend the terms and that the reference to parliamentary time overlooked the ease with which this amendment could be incorporated into the Bill. After all, it falls entirely within the Long Title of the Bill. It would be an appropriate gesture if, at this late hour of the Report stage, the Minister were to indicate that it is indeed an oversight which he proposes to rectify straightaway.

Earl Russell

My Lords, it is only necessary to pronounce the name "Stansted" to remind the House that those living in the neighbourhood of a major airport are on occasion capable of objecting to plans to extend it. If it should be recognised as a permanent situation that those who live near a major airport also have to shoulder on their own international obligations which should properly rest on the holders, we shall deliver a very big weapon into the hands of objectors to airports in future which might severely handicap the development of air travel in this country.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, in the discussions on the amendment moved on Tuesday by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I said that we need a national strategy for the reception of refugees. It is worth repeating that. Dare I add that we need a national strategy for their reception as well as and on top of a strategy by the Home Office for making sure as few refugees as possible reach our shores.

It is perfectly obvious that the presence of accepted refugees and of people given exceptional leave to remain in this country who have made an asylum application, are bound to impose extra burdens on health authorities, social services, housing and education. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, quite rightly pointed out the importance and necessity of teaching English to refugees who arrive in this country without possessing our language. So for all those reasons, I hope that the Government will take this amendment most seriously.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to making sufficient resources available for authorities to be able to carry out all their functions properly, and they attach great importance to Section 11 grants. We are determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage which inhibit members of ethnic minorities from playing a full and active part in the social and economic life of the country. The grant remains at the heart of the programme to address racial disadvantage.

For historical reasons, the grant is restricted to the cost of employing additional staff to address the needs of ethnic minorities of Commonwealth origin. Much has changed since 1966. We have every sympathy with the motives of those who point out that members of other ethnic minority groups have similar needs, too. The Government have recognised this in framing the new ethnic minority grant which is paid via Training and Enterprise Councils to support employment, training and enterprise projects run by voluntary organisations. The ethnic minority grant is not circumscribed by the same legislative restrictions and is able to support valuable projects to assist refugees and other communities outside the scope of Section 11 through bodies such as the refugee council.

The Government intend to come forward with legislation, at a suitable opportunity, to extend the scope of the Section 11 grant. But this new clause would not achieve that end. It is restricted to asylum seekers only and their dependants. Important though their needs are, they are only one of the groups who fall outside the scope of the present Section 11. We need to take a more coherent approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was right to point out that a large number of asylum-seekers from outside the Commonwealth have come in recent years. The amendment would not extend the availability of the Section 11 grant to those people. Nothing in the amendment removes the restriction of Section 11 to Commonwealth immigrants.

The new clause would also require that regard should be had to the numbers of asylum-seekers and their dependants. That kind of approach does run against the tide of the important steps which have been taken to ensure that the available funding is not allocated solely on a simple numerical basis, but that is targeted on the basis of specific evidence of need within particular communities. Such steps have been taken in order to ensure that expenditure achieves the maximum benefit for the ethnic minorities.

Therefore, I doubt whether the new clause is the right way forward at present. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, tabled it as a probing amendment—and he has probed. He said that he wanted to wake up the Government. I do not think that any Minister who could take part in the Report stage of this Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill could be asleep or need waking up. Having said that, I hope that I have been able to give the noble Lord the assurance that he sought.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his partially satisfactory answer to my question, but it poses certain problems for me. He said that he is waiting for a suitable opportunity to do all these things, including producing a coherent plan for helping the local authorities which have this problem. I cannot think of a more suitable opportunity than that provided by the introduction of this Bill. Why cannot the Government do it here and now? Why do they not deal with the problem which they have been contemplating and which has been put to them since 1985? Seven years' contemplation is quite a long time even for the noble Earl. The time has come for him to stop thinking and to start acting.

I hesitate to misquote the noble Earl, but he said or gave the impression that the Government were paying great attention to the needs of ethnic minorities and that we need not be frightened that they would forget that. However, he did not tell us that Section 11 grants had just been drastically cut. That seems a funny step to take if one is looking carefully and conscientiously at the needs of ethnic minorities. Those two things worry me.

We know the specific needs of these communities. As I have said, one is English language training, but the whole area of education is a crucial element in this. As I understand the ethnic minority grants, at the moment only one quarter of the projects funded by such grants are refugee projects providing English classes, employment guidance and training through the voluntary sector. I am informed that they do not address wider educational needs either in schools or for adults (whether provided in the local education authority or in the new further education sector).

I am informed that ethnic minority grants are not effectively addressing the needs of the adult refugee population, to which I have referred. Such people would be greatly assisted if Section 11 grants could be extended to cover them. It is for that reason that we have tabled this amendment. I hope that it will have the effect of putting this matter higher on the Government's agenda, and that the results of their contemplations during the past seven years will shortly bear fruit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 40A: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

("Determination of country where there is fear of persecution

. No immigration rule made under the Immigration Act 1971 shall distinguish between different parts of another country in determining or defining whether there is a country in which a person who makes a claim for asylum fears persecution.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving a comparable but more complicated amendment in another place my honourable friend, Mr. John Fraser chose to use a number of historical references when describing the differences between the safe part of a country and the unsafe part of a country, and the extent to which the distinction between a safe and an unsafe part of a country is reflected in the Immigration Rules. He gave two examples, the principal example being of Chenonceaux castle on the river Cher in France, which during the war had its front door in Nazi-France and its backdoor in Vichy-France. If one went to dinner from Nazi-France and went out of the backdoor, one was then relatively safe in Vichy-France. He also pointed out that those parts of the Immigration Rules which provide the fast-track procedure—the 48-hour procedure—could well be called the Robespierre rules on the grounds that Robespierre was placed in detention on 23rd July 1794; he was tried on 23rd July 1794 and he was executed on 24th July 1794—a full and ruthless application of a 48-hour rule with no possibility whatever of appeal.

My examples will not be historical. I am concerned with the possibility (which the Government are hugging to themselves) that they may use the fact that one part of a country is safe to deny the right of a refugee who comes from an unsafe part of that country to apply for asylum. Although it is impossible to be precise in geographical terms, the classic example of that is Yugoslavia. I say that it is "impossible to be precise in geographical terms" because even if the Owen-Vance peace plan is successful in the next few days, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, seems to hope (and as we all fervently hope), nobody has yet drawn the map. Therefore, what is safe for a Serb, a Croat or a Moslem is by no means clear. When the visa restrictions were imposed on the nationals of the former Yugoslavia, they were made available only in Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana. They were therefore quite inaccessible to those living in the dangerous parts of the country who were the ones who really had need of access to a place where a visa could be issued.

With the degrees of civil war that exist in Sri Lanka, Somalia, until recently in Ethiopia and, above all, in Yugoslavia, and probably in the future in a number of areas of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the concept of a safe part of a country is no longer valid for immigration or asylum purposes. Even if the wording of the amendment is defective, I hope that the Government will recognise that point and that they will voluntarily restrict their powers under the Immigration Rules to use the concept of a safe part of a country as a reason for exclusion. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have considerable difficulty getting my mind around the concept of a safe part of a country. It seems to put the Home Office into the position of saying, "You can perfectly easily return to your country—parts of it are excellent".

Lord Renton

My Lords, I have two short points to make. The first is one on which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, agreed with me the other night—that if we are referring to rules to be made, sometimes they should go into a schedule. This is an immigration rule and it is rather different from what is to be found in the second schedule. Nevertheless, I am not sure whether the provisions should be in the form of a new clause. I merely raise the doubt. I have an open mind about it.

I followed with great interest what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave as the examples that arise in present world conditions. However, I think that there is another example that could disprove his case. I refer to Iraq. If someone leaving Iraq is a Kurd, he might very well have reason to fear his return and he should not be forced to return. He might well be given asylum in this country. The same might apply to people at the southern end—is it the Sunni?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Shi'ites.

Lord Renton

My Lords, yes, the Shi'ites. Someone who is a Shi'ite whose home is at the southern end of Iraq might have a claim for asylum because of fear of persecution. He might have to go back to the Baghdad area even to get back to the southern end where he lives. On the other hand, there might well be a person who lives in what we can only describe as the safe part of Iraq—the Baghdad area—where most of the people (not all of them, I agree) seem to support Saddam Hussein. He would probably have less fear of persecution if he returned. Therefore, we need to be flexible and each case must be decided on its merits. It would be unwise to have a rule that sweeps right across the board as this one does by stating: No immigration rule … shall distinguish between different parts of another country". In order to discover the truth of the matter and whether there is a real fear of persecution, one may well have to distinguish between one part of a country and another.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am not quite sure in the case of Iraq what you do with those people who are at present in camps in Saudi Arabia and who come from the Baghdad area. If they were to come here and be sent back because Baghdad is a safe place for Iraqis who are not Kurds and are not Shia's, they might well get back and have their heads chopped off as soon as they arrived.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I understand the concern of noble Lords for the care of people who come from war-torn parts of the world. It is a natural and proper reaction to try to give them shelter and succour, but we must try to operate within our obligations under the 1951 convention. In the draft rules, paragraph 9 provides that a person may be refused asylum if it would be reasonable to expect him to go to another part of his own country in which he would be safe. That is in keeping with paragraph 91 of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees handbook and that approach has been endorsed by the High Court in this country. In some countries troubled areas are relatively localised and it does not seem unreasonable to expect a person to seek his own safety within his country, if that is possible. It is not unreasonable to question why a person should wish to seek refuge in a strange country, perhaps leaving behind family and friends, when it might be possible to move to a different part of the same region with which he will have many personal and cultural links.

One understands the concern of noble Lords, but refusal in those cases will not be automatic. A full assessment will be made in each case of all the circumstances of the case, including any links which the asylum seeker may have here in this country; an assessment of the whole situation in the country of origin, including the extent of any alleged persecution; the ability of the national authorities to offer protection; the reasonableness of expecting the applicant to move to another part of that country; and the practicalities of returning him to a safe part of his own country. Even if a person comes from a war-torn part of the world in which the war is localised, it does not mean that he would necessarily be returned automatically.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and am fascinated that he seeks to use the authority of a decision of the High Court in support of the Government's proposals. That is the first time he has paid any attention to the law, as far as I can see, in the course of our proceedings on the Bill.

The Minister referred in particular to paragraph 91 of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees handbook on procedures and quite rightly cited the fact that it states that: The fear of being persecuted need not always extend to the whole territory of the refugee's country of nationality". However, the handbook goes on to state: In such situations, a person will not be excluded from refugee status merely because he could have sought refuge in another part of the same country, if under all the circumstances it would not have been reasonable to expect him to do so". I appreciate that the Immigration Rules are not rigid on this point and that there is the possibility for someone to claim and to show that it would not be reasonable for him to return to another part of the country. The Minister recognised that fact in his speech. I was looking for a little more in recognition of the fact that these cases will be very frequent; for example, that the Shi'ite Arabs in the marsh part of the country or the Kurds in the northern part of the country have no real prospect of settling in the Sunni part of Iraq. I wonder whether anyone except Saddam Hussein's immediate family are really safe from the fear of persecution, or perhaps other people from the village of Tikrit. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that those who are already refugees from Iraq, even if they come from the Sunni part of Iraq, are hardly likely to have a safe reception when they return home.

I listened to what the Minister said about reasonableness as a criterion. He could have gone further. It is not appropriate for me to push him further now, but I hope that, when the draft rules are finalised and they come before Parliament, this point will not be neglected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 Carriers' liability for transit passengers]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 41: Page 9, line 19, at end insert: ("(4) Nothing in this section shall permit a fine to be levied when a person is granted leave to enter the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be quite brief about this. We seek to remove some of the disincentives for airlines in carrying asylum seekers to the United Kingdom and to make it less important for them to stop people boarding in situations where ultimately a passenger is granted leave to enter. It seems a perfectly logical proposition. The burden is on the Minister, which he may or may not be able to fulfil, to establish that that is not the case.

The fact that the disincentives are very real has been disclosed in previous debates at an earlier stage in the Bill. The fact that they have resulted in injustices and that substantial financial penalties have been imposed on the airlines in all circumstances where necessary documentation is not available is very clear. Amnesty has revealed a serious state of affairs in this respect. It states that genuine refugees have either been prevented from travelling or wrongfully returned by airlines anxious to avoid fines. This point has been made in previous debates and it is not therefore necessary for me to enlarge upon it now. The burden of the argument here is that, when ultimately a passenger's position is vindicated to the extent that he is permitted leave to enter, it makes sense that the airline carrying that passenger should not be subject to a penalty.

As regards Amendment No. 42, I can be even briefer. This simply adds the words, where a person is under 18 years of age", to what is said in Amendment No. 41. Again, that argument has been explored and I need not add anything to it. I still believe that the arguments adduced on that earlier occasion remain valid, although the Government, in a misconceived way, rejected them. If they are not prepared to move on the age point, there is an overwhelming case for them to make a concession on Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, I support the amendment. At the outset let me say how much I welcome my understanding that the Government have decided to exempt the Channel Tunnel passenger trains and car-carrier shuttles from the provisions of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. I raised the issue on Second Reading, and I hope that my understanding of subsequent developments turns out to be correct. If that is so, then I am most grateful.

I fear, however, that such a development would merely distort the playing field for the airlines and the ferry companies. Hence I agree with the continuous attempt of such carriers to ameliorate the workings of that Act. I support them because the Act is damaging to our tourism and to those like the British Tourist Authority which seek to promote tourism. I raised this matter at an earlier stage. I support them because it is wrong that carrier staff overseas should be the first line of immigration control and should be prone to being sued in foreign courts for acting in such a capacity. I have a recent case to hand, but I shall not detain your Lordships save to say that it refers to an EC citizen refused boarding permission by a Danish company trading out of a Dutch port towards Sheerness.

I support the carriers because the Act has not succeeded in its short-term purpose which was originally to stem the flow of Tamils seeking to escape the Sri Lankan civil war; nor, indeed, in its longer-term purpose which was to prevent attempted economic migration in the guise of spurious asylum claims. How, and, indeed, why, should check-in staff be asked to decide such matters? I support the carriers because at the end of the day it is we, the consumers (noble Lords) who pay the penalties, if they are paid at all. One of the iniquities of the working of the Act is the evidence of varying degrees of penalty collection forced upon carriers, especially those from the third world.

I support the carriers because of the doubt raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who apologies for being unable to be present tonight. On Second Reading he said that to require a carrier to carry out the document-checking procedures required by the Act may be outside French and Belgian law which specifies that such checking may be carried out only by authorised officials, whom I take to be government employees.

France and Belgium are two major countries for embarkation and thus for enforcement of the Act. On Second Reading my noble friend the Minister promised to look into the matter. Perhaps he will now clarify the position. I may be wrong. Lastly, I support the carriers and Amendment No. 41 because I believe that many of those who generate penalties are bona fide tourists. The tourist industry was worth £8 billion to this country's economy last year. It does us no good to damage that traffic or the carriers which bring them here. Hence my support for the amendment.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I support the amendment on two broad grounds. One is the ground which has just been expressed so carefully, which is a strictly commercial ground. That argument was rehearsed in earlier debates. The point that I find powerful is that I do not believe that airlines should be turned into substitute immigration officers. It is not their job. To ask people to do things which are not their job probably means that they will do their own job worse and will not do the job of immigration officers very well. Giving them a short course in forgery will not solve that problem which is a matter of principle. That is a fundamental matter and one which the Minister should take on board.

The broader grounds were put clearly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. If someone is given exceptional leave to remain, that presumably means that that person has a genuine fear of persecution but does not, for some reason which one cannot identify in general, satisfy the authorities sufficiently for them to grant him refugee status. Nonetheless, they allow him to remain here. If they do that, it seems remarkable that they should fine the airline for bringing him here. How does the Minister box that compass? The airline has brought him here. He has been allowed to stay, presumably because to send him back would be dangerous. The airline is then fined for bringing him here. That is a difficult proposition to justify.

Amendment No. 42 deals with people under 18, and the case, on straight humanitarian grounds, becomes much stronger. Children are sometimes—there are not many of them, as has been said in earlier debates—thrust onto aeroplanes without documents by terrified parents who want to get them out of difficult and dangerous situations. Those children are unlikely to have documents. That they should then be sent back by the airline because it does not want to be fined, or it is fined when they arrive because the children are passed on, is a travesty of the humane treatment of children.

The Minister should be reminded that the 1951 convention imposes an obligation upon those countries which have signed it not to obstruct access to their asylum procedures. Children under the age of 18 thrust on aeroplanes without papers who are not then allowed access to our asylum procedures fall within the convention; that is to say, we break the convention unless we allow those children access to our asylum procedures. For all those reasons, the amendment is important. It is one which we support from these Benches and one on which I hope we shall receive a more elastic reply from the Minister than some we have had today.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, I support Amendment No. 42. I wish to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that this attempt to keep at bay those who are genuinely seeking asylum by a fine on carriers is a denial of our responsibilities under the UN convention. Not only do we have a responsibility to determine the status of those who reach this island. We also have a responsibility not to prevent them from doing so by means such as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act.

Reference has already been made to the difficult position in which carriers' employees are placed if they are expected to be immigration officers. That difficulty is compounded in the case of children. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke of the scenario when children are put on an aeroplane by parents who are frightened for their children's future. To expect the airline's employees to prevent them taking that action places them in an extremely difficult position. Surely it is one for which their status as the airline's employees does not equip them.

I wonder whether the Minister can answer that point and in particular say how that can be squared with the humane treatment of children who are trying to escape from difficult and terrifying circumstances.

Lord Monson

My Lords, although I said earlier that I broadly support the Government on the Bill, Amendment No. 41—not Amendment No. 42—is justifiable and wholly desirable. I support it without qualification.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I spoke in Committee on the principle that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill. I support the amendment so far as it goes. As I said in Committee, I believe, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, that airlines should not be expected to act as some kind of immigration officer.

I have asked my noble friend for clarification, but as I understand the matter, if a person is eventually granted asylum in this country, the airline gets its money hack. However, I understand that a number of people reach a kind of half-way stage, which I presume is the meaning of the phrase, "leave to enter". In that circumstance, the airline or the shipping company does not get its money back. If for some reason the immigration authorities allow the person to stay in this country, why should the carrier have to pay the £2,000? Why should the money not be refunded if the Government admit that for some reason that person should be allowed to stay?

I admit to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I am viewing the situation from a commercial point of view, as a carrier, rather than from a humanitarian point of view. I have no expertise in that aspect of the matter, but I like to think that I have a little expertise in the field of carriers. I ask my noble friend to clarify the situation.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, when the 1987 Act went through Parliament, similar amendments were debated and rejected on that occasion. We stated then that statutory exemptions to liability would undermine the aim of the Act. I know that it does not meet with everyone's approval, but the underlying aim is to prevent people travelling here without the proper documents; and it would encourage carriers to make judgments that they cannot reasonably make.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon stated that we are keeping at bay those who seek asylum. With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, we are doing nothing of the kind. We are saying that carriers who bring people here should ensure that those people are carrying the proper documents.

The simple proposition underlying the 1987 Act is that carriers should not bring to this country passengers who are not in possession of the proper documents. Carriers are not asked to make judgments as to the acceptability of any individual passenger. All they must check is whether a passenger holds the proper documentation. The amendment would permit the carrier to bring to the United Kingdom passengers who are not in possession of the proper documents if the carrier believed that the immigration service would give leave to enter. However, if a passenger does not have proper documents, it may not be possible to return him to another country. In consequence, the immigration service may be obliged to grant such passengers leave to enter by default. In such circumstances it is right that the carrier should be discouraged from repeating its action by the levying of a charge under the 1987 Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Brabazon, stated that airline operators should not be turned into immigration officers. We are not doing anything of the kind. There is a very real and important distinction between a carrier's responsibilities under the 1987 Act and an immigration officer's responsibility under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules made thereunder, to determine whether or not a passenger may be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom. The carrier's responsibilities to ensure the possession of proper documentation may be described as narrow in comparison with those of the immigration officer who is bound to consider all factors relevant to the passenger's admission to the United Kingdom.

In relation to asylum-seekers, I can assure noble Lords that no charge is made to carriers in relation to any passenger who is accepted as a refugee. Where a charge has been levied in such a case, it will subsequently be waived or refunded. My noble friend Lord Brabazon asks: if a person is granted leave to enter, why can the money not be refunded. However, leave to enter does not mean that a person is given asylum, and it does not grant refugee status. Many people are given leave to enter who do not fall into the category of refugees; and it is refugees for whom the expenditure will be waived.

My noble friend Lord Mountevans reminded me that I said that I would consider complex legal issues concerning the ferry companies and the position under French and Belgian law in the context of their liabilities under the Carriers' Liability Act. We are giving considerable careful thought to that matter and I hope that my noble friend will understand that because of the complexity of the issues, a decision has yet to be made. I cannot give any further information about that matter.

Amendment No. 42 proposes that a fine should not be levied if the person is under the age of 18. The right reverend Prelate stated that children were bundled into aeroplanes in terror—or perhaps it was the noble lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who stated that. I thought that it was more dramatic language than the right reverend Prelate is usually disposed to use. I do not find that the airlines act in that manner. One never sees people being bundled into aeroplanes; they are put onto aeroplanes with great care.

If Amendment No. 42 were to be accepted, it would open up an avenue for abuse. Fraudulent claims as to age and circumstances would he made before embarkation in order to secure carriage to the United Kingdom. Without proper documents, it would be impossible to decide whether a person were over 18 or younger, and the amendment would result in argument and disagreement whether a charge should be levied.

An important feature of the present carrier liability arrangements is that there are no statutory exemptions to confuse the carrier's check-in staff. They would only have to ask each applicant whether they had the right documents. The amendment would serve to discourage parents or guardians from obtaining the necessary visas. It would encourage carriers to ignore the checking of documents of all those who are under 18.

Even if there was an exemption from liability to a charge under the Carriers' Liability Act, I wonder whether it is likely that a responsible carrier would wish to remove from his own country an unaccompanied child with improper or inadequate documentation.

The amendment, in practice, would not afford extra protection to genuine refugee children. If a child is at risk of persecution, it is not obvious that the most appropriate course is for him to make his way unaccompanied to an international airport and then to find an aeroplane to take him to the United Kingdom. No charge is made to carriers in relation to any passenger, adult or child, who is accompanied as a refugee. Where, a charge has been levied, in such a case it will be subsequently waived or refunded.

I hope that noble Lords will keep the matter in perspective. In 1992, 185 children claimed asylum at our ports; but millions came to this country in other circumstances. The simple fact is that if children need a visa, parents or guardians should obtain one and the carriers should not transport people without them. Travellers must have the appropriate documents, whether they are an adult or a child; or, as I remember from Committee stage, if they happen to be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. That is not an unreasonable situation. If a child or an adult arrives in the United Kingdom and is a genuine asylum applicant but has no visa, his application will nevertheless be fully and properly considered.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I shall not dwell on Amendment No. 42, although I do not want the Minister to infer that I have come to the conclusion that he is right about the matter. I have not; I think that he is wrong. Noble Lords have voiced their anxiety about the anomaly that is revealed in the argumentation about Amendment No. 41. With respect, I do not think that the Minister has disposed of the arguments that have been adduced by his noble friends Lord Mountevans and Lord Brabazon. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, speaks with some authority in this field having been a Minister in this House with responsibility for transport on two separate occasions. If he believes that the situation has been totally unsatisfactory, as he has said, he should be listened to with care. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that the Minister has done that.

At the end of the day the position of a passenger who is granted leave is partially vindicated. Therefore, the carrier should also be vindicated. I cannot see how that undermines the purposes to which the Minister alluded in his response. It seemed to me that the case that he was arguing was full of logical inconsistencies. He says that certain practices have emerged so that in certain circumstances the carriers are not penalised because repayments are made. However, that is in the gift of the Minister and the Home Office. I do not see why such practices should not be enshrined in law along the lines that we propose.

The Minister said that carriers are not immigration officials. Strictly speaking, that is right. However, they have become quasi immigration officials performing some of the tasks performed by immigration officials. In certain instances it is important that they should take a chance where they believe that their judgment may be vindicated by the passenger being granted leave to enter. In my view, the Minister has not begun to answer that case. In those circumstances, the opinion of the House should be tested.

7.22 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 65.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hylton, L.
Airedale, L. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Jay of Paddington, B.
Auckland, L. Kagan, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Kilbracken, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Lawrence, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brightman, L. McNair, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Monson, L.
Cadman, L. Mountevans, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Perry of Walton, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Desai, L. [Teller.] Ripon, Bp.
Erroll, E. Russell, E.
Graham of Edmonton, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Gregson, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Halsbury, E. Sterling of Plaistow, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hollick, L. Tordoff, L. [Teller]
Howie of Troon, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Caithness, E.
Astor, V. Carnegy of Lour, B.
Barber, L. Chilver, L.
Belstead, L. Clark of Kempston, L
Blake, L. Colville of Culross, V.
Blatch, B. Colwyn, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Cranborne, V.
Brigstocke, B. Cumberlege, B.
Dudley, E. Marlesford, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Mersey, V.
Elphinstone, L. Morris, L.
Ferrers, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Flather, B. Moyne, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Nelson of Stafford, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Glenarthur, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Goschen, V. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Rankeillour, L.
Harmsworth, L. Reay, L.
Harvington, L. Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Hayhoe, L. Selsdon, L.
Henley, L. Stewartby, L.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.] Stockton, E.
HolmPatrick, L. Strathclyde, L.
Hooper, B. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Hothfield, L.
Howe, E. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]
Jeffreys, L.
Knutsford, V. Thatcher, B.
Long, V. Trumpington, B.
Lyell, L. Ullswater, V.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Wakeham, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.30 p.m.

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 43: After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

("Definition of offence under 1987 Act

. A person shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, in any of the following cases—

  1. (a) he shall either by himself or in conjunction with any other person or persons prevent, hinder or delay any traveller claiming asylum from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer,
  2. (b) if being an immigration officer he shall conduct the examination either without authority or in such a manner as to render that examination unlawful, or
  3. (c) if as an owner or agent of a ship or aircraft he shall procure, assist or permit any employee, servant, agent or any other person to commit an offence under paragraph (,a) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter to which I referred in Committee. The Minister promised to write to me and he has done so. I merely table this amendment as a probing amendment to tease the question out a little further. Noble Lords who were present on the previous occasion will remember that this matter concerns those cases where carriers seeking to avoid paying the carrier's liability tax intercept people whom they suspect of not having the correct documents before those people reach the immigration officials. Those people are forced back on to the plane and forced back to the place whence they came.

In this amendment we seek to introduce a new offence—I know the Government never like that, particularly coming from the Opposition—to cover that situation. I know the Minister suggests that the current position covers those cases adequately. However, I thought it might be useful for the House to hear the Government's reasons and for me to test the Government a little more on this issue. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has argued this matter more extensively before. However, I wish to reinforce his plea that the onus should be on the Government to explain what, on the face of it, constitutes a serious dichotomy of treatment between the asylum seeker and the carrier, or the officer of the carrier, who misbehaves, or who exceeds his or her duty. It appears to me that, on the face of it, the consequences for the person who is treated in an ultra vires way are certainly far more draconian than any consequences for the carrier. It also seems to me that there should be some criminal sanction applied to people who misbehave in this way and whose actions can have such dire consequences.

I believe that a civil redress is not satisfactory in such circumstances, or may not be satisfactory in such circumstances, particularly as legal aid is so difficult to come by. These people cannot finance actions in the civil courts, more particularly if they are unable to be here. This is not a case where the Government should simply be tested. I should say on behalf of the Opposition that we deplore the whole process that the Government have established. The Minister has been invited to respond to what is a probing amendment. I cannot complain about that at this time of the evening. However, the burden of establishing their case rests firmly on the Government and they have not begun to establish that burden of proof in all the debates we have had on these issues.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying this is a probing amendment. That seems to be quite a rarity today. I am grateful to him for informing me of that even though it did not find much favour with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I do not think there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and myself on the principle that someone who comes to the United Kingdom wishing to claim asylum should have the opportunity to do so. I said I would consider this matter and I have done so. I have written to the noble Lord, as he said I had.

I am aware of the allegations that, in some cases, passengers have been prevented from disembarking or from approaching the immigration control. That is, of course, quite intolerable. The Government have made it clear that this is totally unacceptable. Where the noble Lord and I might differ is over the need for new offences to be created. Immigration officers have clear instructions that a person who claims asylum while in the United Kingdom or at one of our ports must have his application referred to the Home Office. I do not believe that the creation of a new offence is the right response should those instructions not be followed.

As I said, I have reflected further on this since Committee stage and our view remains that there is not a gap in the law which makes it necessary to create a new offence of preventing an asylum seeker from being examined by an immigration officer. That someone should be prevented from being examined is, of course, intolerable. The common law offence of false imprisonment encompasses the unlawful detention of a person on an aircraft or a vessel within the United Kingdom. It carries a penalty of imprisonment or an unlimited fine. Anyone who uses force to detain a passenger unlawfully would also be committing an assault.

I recognise that it would be difficult to prove the commission of these offences, especially once the person has left the country. But that difficulty would not be lessened by the creation of a specific new offence and the new offence would also face that difficulty. While we all disapprove of such actions, they are at present unlawful and I suggest that the inclusion of an extra criterion is not necessary.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he indicate to the House how practicable in many of these instances, particularly having regard to the difficulties of obtaining legal aid—I shall not go into that again as I have already referred to it—such civil remedies are? It is no use the Government saying they disapprove of such actions and that they are intolerable. If there is no effective remedy, the position is completely unsatisfactory. As I have said, there is a dichotomy of treatment. Does not the noble Earl accept that a criminal sanction would in itself operate as a deterrent where no really effective deterrent exists at the present time because of the difficulties of securing redress in the civil courts?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I quite see there is a difficulty in the hypothetical case of a person who comes off an aircraft wanting to seek asylum being detained by another person as the latter wishes to force him back on the aircraft for fear of facing a carrier's liability fine. I appreciate that is a difficult situation. The noble Lord asked what is the remedy for that situation. He claimed that it was no use the Government merely saying that situation was intolerable. The remedy is the law. Under the law it is a criminal offence falsely to imprison a person. The remedy is not a civil remedy. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said as regards it being difficult to get hold of the person concerned but making a new offence will not make that any easier. Whether the act of false imprisonment takes place in an aircraft or on the ground at an airport, it is a criminal offence.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, there is obviously wide agreement on the fact that this is a practice up with which we shall not put in this country. The argument concerns what can be done about it. I understand what the noble Earl is saying and I am sincerely grateful to him for having taken the trouble to explain the matter in such detail. Perhaps, through having exposed this issue in this debate, we have gone some way towards drawing it to people's attention. Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope I may ask the noble Earl, whether, with the leave of the House, he would be prepared to suggest that steps are taken to make sure that carriers understand this is a serious offence in the eyes of the Government and of the law in this country and that anyone found behaving in this way will be dealt with most severely.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to that intervention. I shall certainly take note of the noble Lord's suggestion. I am not quite sure what will be done or whether it will be appropriate for anything to be done but I shall certainly take note of the suggestion. I shall look into the matter.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. We have made a tiny bit of progress and I hope that between us we can prevent people facing such terrible traumas. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43A: After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

("Special immigration officer

.—(1) Where an individual is, or may be an asylum-seeker, any examination of such an individual shall be conducted only by a special immigration officer.

(2) A special immigration officer is an immigration officer who shall have received training of not less than 10 working days per annum in—

  1. (a) the contents of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol and the Handbook;
  2. (b) the customs, religious practices, political background and contemporary political circumstances of the country of origin or habitual residence;
  3. (c) interviewing techniques;
  4. (d) the use of an interpreter.

(3) Any interpreter used by the immigration service or the Immigration and Nationality Department for the purposes of any examination or interview shall be accredited by the Institute of Linguists in the language of choice of the interviewee.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43A perhaps I may say at the outset, as I am sure the noble Earl has been yearning for me to do throughout the proceedings, that this is a probing amendment. Therefore, the Whips can ease off and the noble Lord, Lord Clark, can leave.

The amendment has been tabled because we felt that it was necessary to ascertain from the noble Earl what training is provided for immigration officers. They deal with highly sensitive matters, as I am sure the Minister will concede. For that reason we believe that it is essential that they should receive appropriate and extensive training. We believe that the elements of that training which we have set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) are highly relevant.

It goes without saying that an interpreter must be used. I shall not press that issue because the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has been kind enough to give me a copy of a very long letter dated 26th February which he has received from the noble Earl dealing with the question of interpreters. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wishes to address that matter further he may wish to refer to the letter, in which the matter is dealt with extensively.

I am more concerned, therefore, about the issue of the training which immigration officers receive as regards dealing with this difficult area of the law. That it is difficult and complex goes without saying. Clearly, familiarity with the contents of the United Nations convention, the protocol and handbook are all important. Those are the more legalistic aspects. There is also the question of the background and environment from which asylum seekers come and the political circumstances which have given rise to their seeking refuge in this country. We have set out those aspects in paragraph (b). They are plainly important and it is equally important that immigration officers should be well educated in those matters.

As regards interviewing techniques, it is obvious that the necessary educational techniques to ensure that somebody is a good, reasonable and sensitive listener are very important.

Can the noble Earl indicate to the House how far the present training encompasses those matters? What is the nature of the training presently undertaken? Where does it take place? Is it in one place or a number of places? How many instructors are employed for that purpose. Over what period is the training undertaken? To what extent are interrogations carried out by people who may be relatively untrained? I hope that the Minister will say none at all.

As regards interviewing techniques, if there is a bad apple, training will not improve matters. There are bad apples in this situation as there are in the police. That cannot be gainsaid. I know of instances where the interrogation carried out has been intolerable and unacceptable. I do not suggest that the overwhelming majority of immigration officers are of that ilk, but it does happen. Somebody who is educated in interviewing techniques is less likely to feel insecure and less likely for that reason to adopt unacceptable practices in interviewing.

Subsection (3) deals with interpreters. Unless I have missed any points as a result of reading the letter rather hastily, I believe that the Minister has dealt with that matter extensively. I leave that aspect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to pursue. I beg to move.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, this is an important amendment. I like it particularly because it distinguishes between asylum seekers and ordinary immigration cases. The Bill has to some extent lumped them together, certainly in its Short Title, but they are of their nature very different. People wish to immigrate to this country because they want to be here. Asylum seekers come for a totally different reason. They are in fear of their life or in fear of severe persecution or discrimination in some other country from which they are seeking to escape. Those are two very different situations.

Training is clearly of the greatest importance in the case of asylum. That is a subject about which I have had considerable correspondence with the Home Office. I am glad that the amendment specifically mentions interviewing techniques. It is vitally important that those conducting the interviews should be aware of the special circumstances of some asylum seekers—quite a high proportion—who have already suffered persecution, maltreatment and sometimes torture. Those people arrive in this country in a state of trauma. In addition, they may well be disoriented by having crossed several time zones and having had long and sleepless journeys. Interviewers should appreciate that before starting an interview or when considering postponing it.

The subject of interpretation is of the greatest importance because if the asylum seeker cannot speak English and does not understand, the result will be useless unless the interpretation is first class. Perhaps the amendment goes a little too far in specifying that interpreters must be accredited by the Institute of Linguists. I accept that that may not always be possible in the case of minority languages or obscure languages which are not used much. Nevertheless, interpreters should have training in the matters listed at the beginning of the amendment just as much as immigration officers.

I apologise to the noble Earl that I have to leave the Chamber and therefore will not be able to listen to his reply, but I promise him that I shall study it most carefully in Hansard.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, again I am delighted to know from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this is also a probing amendment. I shall try to answer his probe as best I can.

The amendment is concerned with the qualifications of both immigration officers who conduct asylum interviews and interpreters who are used in any interview which is conducted by an immigration officer or by another member of the Immigration and Nationality Department. I share the noble Lord's views, and indeed those of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has already vaporised, that those are important and sensitive interviews and that all parties involved should be fully competent for the job they have to do.

It is important to distinguish between the role of an immigration officer, who, after all, interviews an asylum applicant, and the role of the official in the Asylum Division of the Home Office. The official in the Asylum Division of the Home Office makes the decision as to whether the applicant is or is not a refugee. For that purpose he needs some knowledge of the political and other background of the country in which the applicant claims persecution. He also needs to be aware of the law and the international obligations which relate to the treatment of asylum seekers. The department provides training and written guidance on this.

The immigration officer, on the other hand, is not a specialist in those fields, and he does not need to be. His job is to elicit a full account of the asylum claim from the applicant which will enable the officer in the Asylum Division to reach a decision. All immigration officers are trained and practised interviewers and they are instructed on the use of interpreters.

In practice, if we allowed only "special immigration officers", as the amendment suggests, to conduct asylum interviews we would have to train so many that they would cease to be a special category. The sheer number of asylum interviews which are conducted makes this inevitable. The new clause would also oblige us to have officers specialising in particular countries. The wide variety of countries from which asylum seekers come, the variety of locations in the United Kingdom and the times at which they need to be interviewed would make it very unlikely that exactly the right specialist officer would be available to deal with a particular applicant at a particular time.

I therefore think that we must leave it to the specialists in the Asylum Division to decide claims, and we must look to immigration officers to carry out competent interviews. That does not mean that immigration officers should not be aware of the sensitivities of asylum cases. Of course they should; and they have specific instructions on how to deal with asylum applicants. I can tell your Lordships that representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regularly address immigration officer training courses. It is necessary for interviewing officers to understand what the state of mind of an asylum seeker might be both to ensure that he treats the person properly and in order to conduct a fully effective interview.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me a number of questions about training. I can tell him some of the answers. Training is conducted both centrally and at individual ports. Both the immigration service and the Asylum Division have specialised training units. There is a six-week initial training period for all new immigration officers and one week's consolidation training after two years or so of having been in post. Further, more specialised courses are provided too.

The amendment also proposes that all interpreters who are used by the immigration service or the Asylum Division should be accredited by the Institute of Linguists. We all agree that we must have competent interpreters, but I am afraid that the new clause represents an unrealistic aspiration. The fact is that there are very few people in this country who are able and willing to act as interpreters in asylum interviews in certain unusual languages. There are, after all, hundreds of different languages and dialects. A high standard of interpreting is required in interviews and generally the interpreter will be a native speaker of the applicant's language. I can tell your Lordships that it is not an easy matter to obtain competent speakers of, for example, Lingala or Kurdish who are willing to act as interpreters in asylum interviews. We are though constantly looking at ways of improving this situation. The Immigration and Nationality Department is conducting a review of its interpreting needs; and it is also represented on the steering group of the Nuffield Foundation Interpreter Project.

One must distinguish between the interpreter's linguistic ability on the one hand and the conduct of the interview on the other. The interview itself is the responsibility of the interviewing officer and all immigration officers have been clearly instructed on that point. Interpreters are instructed that their role is to give an accurate verbatim translation of what is said, no more and no less. When an interpreter is used by the immigration service for the first time he is asked to sign a declaration that he will translate faithfully from English to the language in question and vice versa. Interpreters should not intervene in the interview in any other way or express personal opinions.

I hope that I have been able to satisfy the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for information about those matters of immigration officers and officials at the Asylum Division. I hope that that has been of help to him.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I remain more than a little unhappy about the situation affecting the immigration officer as distinct from the officials in the Asylum Division of the Home Office. Of course, I accept what the Minister says about the significance of the role undertaken by the officials in the Asylum Division. They have to have a more intimate knowledge of the law, the background and the circumstances in which asylum is sought. However, the fact remains that under the legislation and rules so much importance has to be allotted to that original interview. That is what worries me. If the interviewer is not sufficiently aware of the circumstances which affect the asylum seeker, the wrong impression could very easily be given. Although it is true that the official in the Asylum Division would check that situation later, nonetheless what is attributed to the asylum seeker in the original interview can be absolutely crucial. Consequently I believe the fact that officials are not specifically trained in such matters is unsatisfactory.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that, with a substantial number of asylum seekers coming to this country —the number remains substantial—at the initial training of the immigration officers at the ports of entry and the further training undertaken (the consolidation course and further courses to which the Minister referred) there is need for considerably more emphasis to be placed on the requirements relating to interrogations and interviews undertaken by those immigration officials in the first instance than perhaps applies at present.

I hope that the Minister will look into those matters further. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.