Immigration Advisers (Hansard, 2 March 1998)

§ Lord Dholakia
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publicise the names and addresses of those companies and individuals offering immigration advice whose activities cause concern to the Home Office.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, no. It would not be right to publish details of companies and individuals whose activities are currently under investigation or who may be further investigated in the future or who may be behaving in a way which is currently within the law where we believe the law to be inadequate and in need of amendment.

§ Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am aware of his impeccable record in the field of race and community relations. Does he agree that those who are desperately seeking help and advice on immigration matters are being exploited and that it is right and proper that they should be aware of where to go when seeking such help and advice? On that basis, does the Minister accept that a 3 per cent. increase in the budget of the Immigration Advisory Service has resulted over a period of three years in a deficit of about 947 £500,000 and yet the service, whose record is impeccable—it has a 25 per cent. success rate—is expected to cut its staff by 21 as a result of cuts?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's first proposition. People are in a vulnerable situation and are being leeched upon by organisations of dubious morality and possible illegality. Those organisations are concerned with bogus applications for asylum, the presentation of bogus marriage certificates and fraud of the legal aid fund and are preying financially upon those in such difficulties.
The Government funds the Immigration Advisory Service. Funding for 1997–98 will be core funding of £2.592 million, together with £500,000 on the spend-to-save initiative. In respect of the refugee legal centre, there is further funding from the Home Office of some £3.644 million. Therefore, the sums available from public funds are not insignificant.

§ Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the law can deal with these illegalities? My experience shows that when these fraudulent immigration agencies deal with gullible people the civil courts are dilatory in attending to the cases. Can the Minister give his attention to accelerating the court process of these cases, which cause enormous distress?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question. We believe that the criminal courts and not the civil courts should be dealing with these cases. Undoubtedly, criminal offences are being committed, which is one of the points of the consultation document we have put forward. The Government's preference is to look to a statutory scheme which would be able to regulate the activities. Our further belief is that if there are convictions in the courts a few sharp sentences would send a useful signal and have a salutary effect on what is a cruel practice.

§ Lord Randall of St. Budeaux
My Lords, does the Minister agree that applicants for immigration are incredibly vulnerable because the immigration law is complex and many of them are not in the UK at the time of application? In order to prevent the kind of cases about which we read, is there not a reasonable case for setting up a register of reputable organisations and individuals which provide such services to potential immigrants?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, there is such a case. That is why we have put out our consultation document which is headed "Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisers". The three options we are examining are, first, a self-financing statutory scheme, to which I referred earlier; secondly, a voluntary self-regulatory scheme; and, thirdly, a compulsory self-regulation scheme.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, bearing in mind that many of the examples quoted in the consultation document are 948 of a criminal nature, and that on 2nd February in another place the Home Secretary stated that 250 firms were guilty of unscrupulous behaviour and 40 of them were solicitors, why have not those firms been reported to the Home Office, the Law Society or to the police respectively?
Furthermore, considering that the proposed regulatory scheme will cost £600 per agency, where does the Minister believe that the UKIS and the Refugee Legal Centre will find the money to meet the additional costs? Where will it come from if it is not passed on to the clients?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, there may be confusion in the noble Lord's mind. The proposed fee for the first option, the preferred option, is an annual fee of £600. That is not a vast amount in terms of the budgets which I have put forward. It may weed out the unscrupulous because they will know that under a statutory scheme they are likely to be exposed.
Assertion of unscrupulous behaviour is one thing, but proof of criminal activity is quite another. However, I assure your Lordships that the Home Secretary is deeply concerned about the abuses. The matter was raised in 1992 by a Select Committee in another place and it was put forward in your Lordships' House in 1996 when my noble friend Lord Dubs introduced a proposal for a statutory scheme. The then government believed that the problem was not sufficient to require such a remedy.

§ Lord Weatherill
My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many immigration cases were brought to me in my former constituency of Croydon. In one case, I discovered that people were being brought to me by unscrupulous advisers who charged a fee for the introduction. Does the Minister agree that there should be a register?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, as far as the Government are concerned, the noble Lord is pushing at an open door. I confirm that people in this vulnerable situation are being charged, I have heard it alleged, as much as £1,000. A further claim is then made on the legal aid fund, making two possible frauds. At the end, there is no decent redress for the applicant and the system is severely clogged for more meritorious applications.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past he has admitted that certain aspects of the law relating to asylum seekers are far from clear and satisfactory and that while that is so the need for advice is exceptional? When he considers how far that is the case, will he bear in mind what was said by Lord Taylor of Gosforth about the delays to justice caused by ill-informed litigants in person?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, certainly it is a very difficult area of law even for those who claim to be expert in it. But I know that the noble Earl will remember the indication which I gave to your Lordships 949 in the past few weeks that there is a review of the asylum procedures. I entirely agree that we want a system which will be fairer, firmer and faster.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Is it not correct that when an asylum seeker has his initial claim rejected by the Home Office, he is informed of the two free legal services which are provided? But is it not the case also that a great many people who seek asylum do not speak English and those forms are only in English? In view of the fact that the Home Office will know, at that stage, which language the person speaks, would it not be possible to put in a separate sheet with that information in that person's own language, because if he goes to a solicitor he is unlikely to be given that information?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, that is a useful suggestion. One of the problems is that people from abroad who come to this country will not be familiar with the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly pointed out, nor with the language. It is people of their own ethnic and national origins who are familiar with the language who are very often preying on their own countrymen and countrywomen. It is that which we wish to stop.

§ Lord Dholakia
My Lords, will the Minister indicate how many cases have been reported to the Law Society, bearing in mind that such exploitation has been going on for some years now?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I cannot give a precise figure in terms of those reported to the Law Society. I agree entirely with the sub-text that the Law Society and the Bar Council have their own duties in relation to their members. Very often, we are dealing with people who are not solicitors or barristers but who may pretend to be. At present there are about 250 organisations, individuals and companies which are known to the Home Office. Of those, 38 are firms of solicitors and five claim to be solicitors. I hope that that provides a context for the noble Lord's question.