HL Deb 12 July 2001 vol 626 cc1230-4

7.15 p.m.

Lord Rooker

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, so as to assist the House, I shall seek to put the draft order in the context of the legislation that is currently in force; and also to explain the practical impact that the order, if affirmed by both Houses, will have on the immigration and asylum process.

Under legislation currently in force, the power to grant or refuse leave to enter can be exercised only by an immigration officer. These powers are not given to other Immigration and Nationality Directorate officers who, on behalf of the Secretary of State, can only grant, vary or refuse leave to remain. Section 1 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 changed this so that the Secretary of State may grant or refuse leave to enter as well as leave to remain. The order will enable those powers to be exercised.

The provisions in the order are part of the general flexibility provisions set out in Sections 1 and 2 of the 1999 Act. We took these powers because it was becoming increasingly difficult within previous legislative restraints to maintain efficient and effective controls at ports while coping with substantial passenger growth. We wanted to create a legislative framework that would allow more operational flexibility and better use of information technology, encourage inter-agency co-operation and maximise efficient use of resources to expedite passenger clearance and deal more effectively with those who seek to abuse or circumvent the immigration controls. These provisions are being brought into effect in a managed and staged way and this order will add to and enhance these.

I hope that that answers the only question I had when the measure arrived on my desk: if these provisions are so important and are part of the 1999 Act, how come that I am introducing them only in July 2001? It is simply because of the changes that have arisen in the management and operation of the Immigration and Nationality Department, with some 3,000 extra staff—the number has almost doubled in the past two years—and £2 billion of extra expenditure. The aim has been to bring about a massive increase in, it is hoped, efficient, firm and much faster decisions in a managed way so as not to overload the changes that have taken place. The changes that we are now introducing are part of that managed process.

The main thrust of the order is that it will give the power to grant or refuse leave to enter to the Secretary of State in cases where the applicant has applied for asylum or on human rights grounds. During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act the Government said that the power was likely to be used in such circumstances. The power being taken in the order has been drawn up specifically to improve the operation of the asylum process. However, the scope of the primary legislation does not preclude the taking of further, wider powers by order if the practical operation of the current order indicated a need or if the profile of applications merited it.

To put the matter in context it may be helpful if I briefly explain how the asylum process works at present and how the provisions of the order will change this. Currently, where an applicant applies at a port of entry for asylum or on human rights grounds the application has to be referred by the port to the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. This is in recognition of the "Basic Requirements" set out in the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugees Status provided by the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. The handbook recommends that there, should be a clearly identified authority—wherever possible a single central authority—with responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and taking decisions in the first instance". It is the caseworker at the Integrated Casework Directorate who decides the merits of the asylum or human rights claim, and whether it should be granted or refused. In the case of someone who applies in-country, the caseworker would make that decision and also grant or refuse leave to remain. However, because of the way that the legislation is currently framed, the grant or refusal of leave to enter can be carried out only by an immigration officer. In applications made at ports on entry, therefore, the case must be returned to the port for an immigration officer to serve the leave to enter decision.

It is our view that there are no sensible, logical reasons why asylum and human rights cases should normally have to pass between the caseworker and the ports in this way. It involves double handling of cases, which cannot be an efficient or an effective use of resources. There seems to us no sound reasons why the caseworker deciding the claim cannot also give or refuse leave to enter. Decisions are served by post by immigration officers and can easily be served by post by caseworkers. This will release immigration officer resources and enable them to be used to handle other areas of the control for which they are specially trained; for example, combating clandestine entry, locating absconders, and effecting returns of those who have no basis to stay here.

The powers provided by the order will have other welcome effects. The physical movement of the cases back to ports is in itself a burden to the asylum process. Cutting out this unnecessary double handling will help the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to speed up and streamline that process. We have always said that we shall implement the 1999 Act in a planned and staged way. This order is part of that planned process. We shall implement the specific provisions in a planned manner.

Significant changes to the working practices of the Integrated Casework Directorate and the Immigration Service will be needed. To ensure that the new procedures work smoothly, a pilot is to be undertaken involving around 50 cases per week in the first instance. This will involve asylum applications made at Heathrow Terminal 3, which will be considered by one caseworking team in Croydon and one in Leeds; or, if appropriate, at the Oakington reception centre. Caseworkers will receive all necessary training. Subject to ongoing review, the pilot scheme will gradually be extended to other ports and to further caseworking teams before its effectiveness is fully evaluated in the autumn.

In accordance with the general commitment that the Government gave during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill 1999, I should like formally to state that, in my opinion, the provisions of the Immigration (Leave to Enter) Order 2001 are compatible with the convention rights as defined by Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Having explained to the House the purpose and content of this order, as well as outlining how it will work in practice, I shall, if required, do my best to answer any points that noble Lords may care to raise. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].(Lord Rooker.)

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, we support the order in principle. It certainly recognises the considerable increase in traffic through the ports and airports in this respect. The Minister gave us a detailed evaluation of how the two bodies will work together. As regards caseworkers, this proposal is a slight expansion of their current role. However, I am sure that the noble Lord can assure us that they will receive adequate training.

We also welcome the fact that this is a pilot scheme, and that true evaluation will be given to the two projects before the process is rolled out, so to speak. Therefore, as I said, we have pleasure in supporting the order.

Lord McNally

My Lords, as the Minister will appreciate from his recent life as a constituency MP, it is often the latter who can judge best how efficiently any particular process is working. Therefore, it may help the House to hear what the adviser to my honourable friend Simon Hughes on immigration matters observed on this order. He said that the order will make a genuine difference, and that: Frequently, cases that are referred to the caseworker and then returned to immigration officers are further delayed, thereby slowing down the process. In principle, we are keen to have a speedier process. That is in the interests of everybody, and particularly those whose claim is being considered". I believe that that endorsement from the sharp end, as it were, shows that the Government are trying to carry out what they promised to do; namely, to get this process of assessment speeded up, which will result in it becoming more humane.

However, just in case the Minister thinks that he is getting an entirely easy ride, my honourable friend asked me to repeat the questions that he raised with Ministers in another place. I quote: How can someone who is seeking to come to the UK to claim asylum under the law, or to claim their rights under a United Nations convention, legally get here? How does someone in that position travel from another country to this one, without illegally getting on a ship, lorry, train or plane? … At the moment, asylum seekers cannot be given a legal route to get to this country to put their case".—[Official Report, Commons, 7th Standing Committee, 11/7/01; col. 10.] My honourable friend asked me to raise the matter again, because he has not received satisfactory responses in the other place. As the Minister is getting such rave reviews, he may, indeed, be able to give the answer tonight.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, asking me questions which the noble Lord knows I cannot answer is bound to lead me to drop myself in it. It is true that we do not generally—I emphasise the word "generally"—accept claims for asylum from third countries. The intention of the United Nations protocol on such matters is that people must have a well-founded belief, and so on, and are fleeing from persecution. By and large, they are not exactly stopping off at the first democratic country that they reach. Indeed, that is our experience. Of course, this issue has been raised many times. In principle, asylum seekers should apply for asylum at the first safe country that they reach. By definition, they have to pass through many safe countries before they get to the United Kingdom. I do not believe that I can give an answer that will satisfy the noble Lord, any more than my colleagues in the other place have been able to satisfy Simon Hughes in their response.

However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for placing on the record the point about support for this important order. There have been tremendous changes in the caseworking directorate. I visited Liverpool this morning and opened the training centre for Caseworking Directorate Liverpool in the old, revamped Cunard building. I should add that people from the Leeds office were also present. It is an incredibly modern facility that will be up and running in August. We have taken on a large number of staff in that part of the world and they have achieved remarkable success in the past 18 months, after starting from scratch. Indeed, some 44,000 decisions have been made. They have gone through a course of training, and will continue with training as the process continues. Of course, many staff at Croydon have done likewise.

It is important that people are fully trained so as to enable them to carry out this important work, because the lives of human beings—indeed, of whole families— rest on such decisions. We must train these people, otherwise we shall not be able to satisfy those who check on us in respect of human rights, and so on. It is absolutely right that we follow that course. We are making every effort to ensure that adequate training will take place.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I should add that we are piloting the introduction of the scheme; we are not exactly piloting the order. We shall be piloting this as a management tool. We are not starting off all at once, so to speak, because, as one can imagine, we need to ensure that the procedures are correct. However, once the process starts, I hope that there will be less chance of my department losing papers, passports, and documents. As Members of Parliament know, one of the most frustrating experiences when you are chasing a case is to be told, "We've mislaid part of the file". If the files are whizzing round the country in the way that has been the case, one can understand how it happens. It is to be hoped that the implementation of this order will also solve that problem. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.