Asylum

HL Deb 29 October 2001 vol 627 cc1187-202

4.02 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on asylum, migration and nationality".

"This year is the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Convention on refugees. The UK is proud to be a signatory to the convention. We will uphold our fundamental moral obligation to protect those fleeing persecution, while protecting our national boundaries and integrity.

"The world is a very different place from that of 50 years ago. At the beginning of this year there were 12 million refugees worldwide.

"Such global movements are a challenge to all nations. Alongside our European partners, we must establish an asylum and immigration system which can respond effectively to the pressures that we face.

"Steps have already been taken, which I intend to extend, to root out the organised criminal gangs who are responsible for the barbaric trade of trafficking in people. The gross exploitation of those in greatest need is unacceptable.

"It is crucial that our approach leads to radical change at home, creating trust by the people of our country and a message that is clearly understood in the rest of the world. The message at home and abroad must be crystal clear, but tough. It must send a signal to people throughout the world that the United Kingdom is not a soft touch.

"Significant improvements have been made in recent years. Staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have worked tirelessly to deal with the backlog of claims. In the past financial year, 132,000 decisions were made, surpassing the 79,000 applications received.

"The new civil penalties and carriers' liability have already cut back illegal entry into the United Kingdom. The substantial investment in new equipment for surveillance and border controls, which I announced last month, will reinforce this work.

"I wish to pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his former ministerial team. They inherited a terrible mess and made huge improvements, but there is much more still to be done.

"That is why today I do not intend to tinker with the existing system but to bring about radical and fundamental reform.

"The reviews of voucher and dispersal policy which I am publishing today, and which are placed in the Vote Office and the Library, have demonstrated that the current system has suffered from real problems. It is too slow, vulnerable to fraud, and felt to be unfair by asylum seekers and local communities alike.

"There are many people who are working illegally, while claiming support or sub-letting their accommodation. There is accommodation which is paid for but unused.

"As the House is aware, there have been social tensions in neighbourhoods across the country and considerable pressure on local education, social and GP services.

"We need a seamless asylum service from initial decision through to appeal, integration or removal. It must be clear, fast and well administered.

"It is my intention to publish a White Paper and subsequent legislation which will provide a comprehensive approach to asylum, nationality and immigration.

"At the heart of my asylum proposal is the presumption that from the moment someone presents himself or herself, he or she will be tracked as well as supported. There will be three key elements to the structure: induction, accommodation and reporting, and fast-track removal or integration.

"The application process will be streamlined and integrated. We shall develop a small network of induction centres in which people will be accommodated after application to facilitate screening, health checks and identification processes.

"After induction, asylum seekers, whether or not they are receiving support, will have to make themselves regularly available at new style reporting centres. We shall phase in this process. Crucially, by the end of next year, a proportion of first-time asylum seekers will be offered a place in new accommodation centres, which are being trialled. We shall establish 3,000 places, offering full board, education and health facilities. Those in accommodation centres will receive a small cash allowance. Those refusing to take up such a place will disqualify themselves from support.

"Decisions about the long-term mix of facilities will be taken in the light of emerging evidence here and abroad about what works. Subject to that, our aim is to phase out the current system of support and dispersal.

"While the trial is being evaluated, those receiving support will be subject to a robust new regime. Instead of the standard acknowledgement letter that is used for identification, smart cards will be phased in from January to ensure entitlement. That will guarantee identification and tackle fraud. Using new biometric techniques, including fingerprinting and photographs, we shall provide both security and certainty.

"Further steps will be taken to improve the current voucher system. The value of voucher support will be uprated as soon as possible in line with the April 2001 income support increases for adults and the increase announced for children last week. Within the total of support available, the cash allowance will be increased from £10 to £14.

"We recognise that in revising the existing voucher system, we need to establish a long-term robust solution. Induction, accommodation and removal centres clearly remove the need for vouchers for those who are assigned a place.

"I can tell the House that once the new smart cards are introduced, the voucher system will be superseded. By the early autumn of next year we will have established a more robust but less socially divisive scheme. I am exploring with colleagues the potential for automatic credit transfer and other mechanisms to provide financial support for asylum seekers.

"While we are not reversing the principle of dispersal away from London and the South East, we will improve consultation with, and the involvement of, local authorities and others. It is crucial that private providers of housing give proper notice to local authorities when asylum seekers are due to be housed in an area. We will develop a stronger regional structure as part of a more devolved and decentralised process, and greater co-ordination with voluntary organisations.

"But none of those changes will work effectively unless we drastically speed up the system. I therefore intend to tackle head on the backlog, including those waiting for appeals. The Lord Chancellor and I therefore intend substantially to improve the throughput of appeals.

"First, we will cut out multiple opportunities for delay. Secondly, we will streamline any further right of appeal limited to a point of law. Thirdly, we will increase the capacity of the adjudication service by 50 per cent—from the current 4,000 to 6,000 cases a month. From next month the capacity will increase to 4,500 and by next November to 6,000.

"Where a claim to asylum is granted, we will improve the integration procedures. Where an appeal has failed, my intention is to streamline the process for removal. Those who have no right to stay must leave the country immediately.

"We currently have 1,900 detention places. By the spring of next year we will have increased that to 2,800. I intend that we should now expand the capacity by a further 40 per cent to 4,000 places. Those will become secure removal centres.

"But asylum seekers will no longer be held in mainstream prison places. I can confirm that from January next year that practice will cease.

"I announced earlier this month my proposals for sensible, controlled legal migration into this country. This will enable those with skills to enter our country legitimately to work. In addition, we will explore with the European Union and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the establishment of agreed gateways to take nominated refugees from outside the country. This has been an anomaly for many years, leading to the scenes at ports and Eurotunnel facilities.

"We will also take action to root out illegal working. Those working in our country illegally are being exploited by unscrupulous gangmasters and employers, in conditions that undermine the minimum wage, fair conditions and, at the same time, defraud the tax and national insurance system.

"The Prime Minister recently announced a cross-departmental working group under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Lord Rooker. He will bring forward proposals for stamping out illegal employment, which will be combined with wider policies to remove the incentive to traffickers and the pull factor created by the opportunity of employment.

"I believe we can also do more to give practical help to those seeking to settle here, in addition to the men and women seeking refugee status. The White Paper will address their language needs together with education for citizenship. I will also be looking to announce the importance of naturalisation.

"Finally, I can also announce that a discussion paper on the review of family visitor appeals has been published today. A copy of this paper will be placed in the Vote Office and the Library.

"This is a substantial package of measures that will fundamentally overhaul our asylum and immigration policy. It is a rational approach to a rapidly changing situation. I believe that it will send a message to the rest of the world that this country is not open to abuse, but nor is it to be a fortress Britain. We are not rejecting economic migrants, refugees from persecution or those seeking to visit our shores.

"Implementation of my policies will take time; but in time they will work in the interests of us all".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.14 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It would be remarkable if every Member in this House did not have within their circle of acquaintances a relative or past beneficiary of the proper asylum policies run by this country. This country has benefited enormously from some of those fortunate accruals to our society. Therefore we all have a common ambition and purpose; that is, to assist the innocent victims of persecution. That is the mark of a civilised society.

However, at the same time, asylum should not work in such a way that it interferes with or cuts across the normal and proper systems of immigration which a country chooses to operate. We have been in some danger that in recent times our asylum system has done just that. Therefore I welcome the fact that in the near future we are to have a White Paper covering the whole of this field, with legislation to follow. Perhaps the Minister could be a little more precise than the Statement as to when that White Paper will arrive.

Today's Statement is welcome all the more so for its inconsistency with statements made by the Prime Minister and others; that is, that the asylum system was working and that the problems had been solved. That situation pertained until the present Home Secretary came to office and that was extremely welcome. However, it is a fact that numbers of asylum seekers rose from 26,000 in 1996 to 100,000 last year.

We welcome the principle of the introduction of accommodation centres. They are supposed to be voluntary, but those offered a place will not receive assistance unless they accept. The Statement mentions that in time there will be 3,000 such places. That is all very well. But at the moment the only such centre in existence is Oakington, which has nowhere near that number of places. Therefore what is to be done about the planning process to create those centres elsewhere in the country? In particular, what will be the public consultation process before the centres are introduced? If they are to be open centres situated in some of the more remote parts of the country, there will be anxiety among those who live in the immediate environment if there is no means of keeping the asylum seekers close to the centres.

We already have too much experience of asylum seekers coming to this country as economic migrants, who are not particularly worried about the support systems we wish to introduce. They disappear into the community and work.

Another aspect of the Statement which I welcome is the introduction of identity cards. They are being introduced for asylum seekers. The Statement talks about "biometric information", including photographs and fingerprints. But photographs and fingerprints do not provide sufficient information to ensure security. Any system which requires more detailed information to be put on the cards will mean that the card cannot be issued at the port of entry. If it cannot be issued at the port of entry immediately asylum is claimed, it leaves the gate open for an asylum seeker subsequently to disappear. That is potentially a considerable problem.

As a result of the Statement it appears that the country will be running three separate systems. One is the illicit system I have already described. The second system is that of accommodation centres. I ask the Minister to assure us that, where those are in place, they will be adequately resourced, particularly in relation to medical, advice, legal and language services. Without such services, the accommodation centres will not work. More importantly, they will not clear their customers through the centres rapidly. In addition, we are to have a system of reporting centres. We do not know how many there will be. We know that there are six at present. People who have their identity cards will be able to use them to receive support from the State and will have to report on a regular basis.

Can the Minister say anything further about the number of reporting centres, and give the same assurance with regard to resources? If such centres are to work and be useful to asylum seekers, all the facilities that I mentioned as regards accommodation centres will be required within them. Can the Minister tell the House at what point someone will try to make a judgment about which of the systems—two official and one unofficial—works? For the third system to be eliminated, the two official systems will need to work much better than anything so far put in place. The Statement may provide a route to a solution but I do not think that it provides a solution.

4.22 p.m.

Lord McNally

My Lords, for my liking, the Statement contains the word "robust" too many times. It refers to a robust new regime; a robust long-term solution and a robust but less socially-divisive scheme. Words such as that usually get into Ministerial statements as a substitute for detailed policy.

However, I say at once that we on these Benches welcome the Statement and the number of proposals and approaches contained in it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I believe that we are at the beginning of a process, not at the end. Following his comments, perhaps I may say that the McNallys certainly came to England 150 years ago as "economic refugees". My father could remember a phrase still used at the turn of the century; that is, "No Irish need apply". Therefore, some of the things we find now are not entirely new. Yet, I believe that this country has continued to retain a reputation for tolerance which at times has surprised our popular press and some politicians who thought that there were cheap votes to be had in exploiting fear and ignorance.

As I have said, we give a broad welcome to the Statement, not least because it has the marks and fingerprints of the present Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I suspect that both show a gut instinct for dealing with such problems, which was absent from either of their two predecessors. I was late coming into the Chamber because I was watching the performance in another place. I hope that the Statement marks a watershed in dealing with these problems, at least at this end of the Palace, as shown by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

There are no "flip" answers or easy solutions to the issues. It is no good taking up parliamentary time reminding each other of past Statements when one side was on one set of the Benches and the other side on another. The problem is like a Rubik's cube: we seem to have one part solved but, when we look round the corner, there is another difficulty.

I hope that the point-scoring lesson has been learnt. I also hope that this is the end of using bureaucracy as a hidden regulator. Building up long waiting lists will only increase and exacerbate the problem. We have learnt that neither dispersal nor vouchers prove to be easy solutions. Making things nastier and more uncomfortable will not dissuade people from seeking asylum. Such people come from places which are much worse.

With that general welcome for the Statement, I have a few questions. Are there any special measures for abandoned or non-supported children who have got into the system? There were disturbing reports recently about such children and concern about whether their needs are being adequately handled. Is this an end of the dispersal policy or will it still play some part in overall schemes?

We welcome the internationalisation of the problem. Can the Minister tell the House whether discussions are taking place with the French to ease problems which are specifically Franco-British? I have one anecdote. During the general election campaign I attended a meeting on asylum in the North East with the then Home Secretary and Miss Ann Widdecombe. A member of the audience, who was an asylum seeker, was a civil engineer. He was stuck in accommodation in Sunderland, unable to work but in no doubt that he could do productive work if allowed. Will there be the flexibility—there has been talk of a green card scheme—to enable well-qualified asylum seekers into our economy where they are needed?

In the past the Minister has been a little tetchy about lawyers and, in particular, solicitors. There is ample evidence of crooked solicitors exploiting the asylum system. Why are not the Government in discussion with the Law Society to root out the bad eggs in the profession and bar them from practising? Let us have sanctions against them. Likewise, I refer to employers who illegally employ people. Why are there not hefty fines for such people? We need to implement sanctions, as we are trying to do in connection with drugs and terrorism. Let us bite into the system at the financial end where people are profiting.

The Minister is the acknowledged expert on this matter. Therefore, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I cannot resist asking whether we are seeing the first pilot scheme for an identity card in this country. I believe we would all like to know that. In general, we welcome the approach and the acceptance that in the past things may not have worked well. Within the terms of wanting to see the detail, we are able to promise the Minister co-operation in trying to put in place a genuinely civilised asylum and immigration system for this country.

4.28 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the responses by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, and Lord McNally. I shall try to run through as many of the issues raised as possible. We clearly agree with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as I believe everyone would. In the past this country has benefited enormously from people who have come here as refugees. There is no question about that. Recent Home Office research indicated that those who had come to live and work in this country made a net contribution to the economy of £2.5 billion per year. There is no question of the positive impact made. However, there are those who seek to cheat and undermine the system to the disadvantage of genuine asylum seekers.

Much of the detail will be dealt with in the White Paper. I turn to the question of when that will be issued. If I say the turn of the year, I cannot be tied down to just before or just after Christmas. Legislation will then follow, with an asylum and immigration Bill. I cannot say when that will be but my guess would be this Session, round about springtime. One can see the pattern of consultation now to get right the details of the White Paper, which will be followed by the Bill.

Accommodation centres will not work unless they are properly resourced. We shall trial accommodation centres with a capacity of about 3,000, which may mean four to five centres. We know roughly the capacity that is needed. We do not have a list. As a Minister, I have not seen a list of possible locations, but there will be full consultation. Some locations may require planning consent and some may not, but there will be consultation with the relevant people: the communities, the elected representatives, the local authorities and the voluntary sector.

The centres will be open in the sense that there will be a gate through which people can come and go. The people will be required to live at the centres on a full-board-and-lodging basis, but they will be open. We must also consider the security of those living in the centres. As the centres will be open, we must ensure that the wrong people do not walk in. They will not be detention centres, but there will have to be security.

Such centres will not be like Oakington. Oakington will remain a central plank of our fast-track system, subject to the results of the forthcoming appeal. None of these proposals will overturn Oakington. Oakington is a much smaller place with a capacity of 250 to 300.

Thirty per cent of asylum seekers, a substantial number, do not ask for any support in the form of housing or finance. Under this robust system of tracking, they will be tracked. We shall need more regular contact with such people as we shall have no need to contact them in order to send them vouchers. We would not necessarily know where they are living, as they may move around, and sometimes they may miss appointments for interviews and so on.

It will not be possible to introduce ID cards at the point of entry, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because more than half asylum seekers do not appear at a point of entry. As people make "in-country" applications, and we do not know how they entered the country, it will not be possible to construct a system at the port of entry. The situation changes from month to month, but at the moment more people are turning up at Croydon making "in-country" applications than at Heathrow or Dover or Gatwick.

We shall have three systems running, but they will not be as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. There will be a pre-1999 system, a 1999–2001 system and a 2001 system. We shall have to decide whether to integrate them or to manage them separately so that the trials are a success and we do not get them confused.

The dispersal policy will remain. What has been announced today cannot happen overnight. Even if we could fast-track and speed up decisions, as indicated in the Statement, the accommodation centres with 3,000 places will deal with only about 10 per cent of the inflow, so the present system must remain while we carry out the trials. There will be dispersal. We shall not continue the pressure on London and the South East, as before, but we shall manage the situation better, as noble Lords will see in the report on the review of dispersal which has been published today, with suggestions for improving the management of the dispersal system.

On vouchers—the means of delivering financial support—we have indicated that by this time next year—I believe we said early autumn—we shall have a different system of delivering the financial support, probably by a "smart card" arrangement.

On lawyers and commissions I have said some hard words. There is money to be made and lawyers benefit from the sloppiness in the system that we have managed unsuccessfully. They benefit from the repeated claims, delays and other such matters. Through the legislation and the flow of changed policies, we shall remove such opportunities for delay as far as we can. We shall riot reduce people's right of appeal, but as the Statement makes clear, we shall curtail some of the rights that have been exploited by others.

A ministerial group is dealing with illegal employment and it is hoped that before Christmas it will bring forward proposals that we can put into legislation early next year. We have no overall plans to introduce ID cards, but that remains under constant discussion by Ministers. It is not done and dusted; nevertheless, we shall return to that issue in due course.

4.35 p.m.

Lord Alton of Liverpool

My Lords, while the Minister is right in saying that this is not an issue that should result in recrimination between political parties or other Members of your Lordships' House, does he recognise that in the past decade there have been four attempts at legislation? Looking at the debates in this House in 1998 will have some virtue and be of some benefit to Ministers. At that time Members of your Lordships' House moved amendments against the dispersal system and against the voucher system, pointing out that the voucher system would not be effective as a disincentive and that it would stigmatise people.

Perhaps the Minister would also look at a debate held in February of this year and at the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who called for a "green card" system, with support from all sides of your Lordships.' House. Does that not underline the need for a bipartisan approach, rather than this matter becoming a political punchbag? Before putative legislation is introduced, perhaps there should be a Select Committee of the House, through which we can proceed with some agreement, not least on the issue of citizenship, to which the Minister referred? Is it reasonable to expect that those who want to live in the United Kingdom should have a sense of loyalty to our institutions and to our shared values? Perhaps that should be a prerequisite of citizenship, as in the United States.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, yes. It is not my function, as it was not in the other place, to decide whether there should be a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. That is a matter for the House itself. I can assure the House that I shall explore the issues raised in previous debates. I know that contentious issues were raised and I know that there were difficulties in respect of the points made regarding citizenship, vouchers and dispersal.

Over the past couple of years, enormous extra resources have been put into the immigration and nationality department by the previous Home Secretary—some 4,000 extra staff and 1,000 extra immigration officers. That was done to meet the backlog and to make 132,000 decisions, whereas in the previous year only 58,000 decisions were made. We are now making decisions faster, including over the summer months, than there are people entering the country. We are biting into the backlog so we can now look at and alleviate the pressures on the South East and London. We cannot reverse the dispersal. We shall not return to maintaining all these people in the South East and London with the consequential pressures on the services.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about young people. I share his worries, particularly when I see young people, who barely speak a word of English, begging from people in cars at traffic lights, during school hours when they should be doing something else. Added to that is my concern about women in national costume, with babies in their arms, begging at traffic junctions, as they were last winter. I thought that was absolutely monstrous. Surely that is illegal. Why was it allowed to take place? If such people intend, as I believe they do, to stay in this country permanently, is there any need for them to beg?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, from anecdotal evidence there is much less aggressive begging than there was. In respect of the young people—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—and particularly unaccompanied children, I have been at airports when they have arrived on their own at the immigration officer's desk. They are then asked where they have come from and they say that they got off a certain plane. There is no adult accompanying them and there are no papers, when in order to board the plane in the first place there must have been some papers. In most cases it is quite clear that the child has been accompanied by an adult—a trafficker, or a family member or whoever—and that the papers have subsequently been destroyed. There is often a big delay—perhaps three or four hours—between the child getting off the plane and turning up at the immigration desk, so there is confusion as to which plane he or she has arrived on.

This is a serious matter. There are far more unaccompanied children arriving now—I do not have the figure in my head—than in the past. It is a major problem for social services, but they take it seriously. Accommodation is provided. There is sometimes a difficulty when people arrive claiming to be a child when clearly and visibly they are not. That can be a serious problem. We have to be very careful that they do not go into children's accommodation.

With regard to dispersal, we have had discussions with the Department of Health and the social services departments in the country regarding children who reach 18 and go into the NASS system. I believe that we have now arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, when, under the new scheme, asylum seekers first arrive in this country and are put into the category of accommodation described, who will run that accommodation? Will such people have access to legal and other advice, and will those centres be so located that members of local communities who wish to give help and support are able to get to them?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the answer to all of my noble friend's questions is yes. As to who will run the accommodation centres, it will be the national asylum support service. It will still be an asylum support system run on a national basis.

As I have said and as will be indicated in the documents we have published today, we are beefing up the management of NASS considerably. Essentially it has been involved in running dispersal at the present time, but it will have an involvement in the new system.

There will be access to the centres. However, as I said in answer to a previous question, we have to be very careful about the security of the people living in the centres. While they are free to come and go, we have to be careful regarding those who go into the centres. There will be no barriers at all to the local community offering help and support to people in those centres: far from it.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, may I follow up the question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Alton? We were told in 1993, 1996 and 1999 that we had a firm but fair system. The Minister now talks about a similar system which is clear, fast and well administered. What confidence can we have when we have said all along that the system in the past was not capable of working?

My first question relates to the cost of the accommodation centres. In answer to a question I put to the previous Minister in this place I was told that it would cost millions of pounds to set up and to run such accommodation centres. Do we have the resources needed to provide such centres?

Secondly, does what the Minister is advocating meet the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and has any consultation taken place with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?

Finally, at present there are what are commonly called "snatch squads" of immigration officers whose powers in many instances exceed those of police officers. Are there any moves to establish some independent complaints machinery so that complaints against them can be dealt with properly and adequately?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, being new to your Lordships' house, I understand the feeling possibly being expressed that chickens are coming home to roost and the sentiment, "We were right at the time; you did not listen; and now you have had to come back and do it a different way". In terms of confidence, however, one has to make a comparison with the situation which existed before we obtained the extra resources in order to manage the Immigration and Nationality Directorate much more sensibly—the huge backlog of tens of thousands of applications, that had to be reduced, the letters unanswered and the postbags unopened, and the recruitment of staff from all walks of life. To have put huge extra resources into the system—some £300 million—shows commitment.

We obviously want value for money, but if we run the operation on the cheap and in a scrimping way we will never have a fairly managed system. I understand that, and I believe that the point has been taken on board.

The centres will be expensive. We have secured the resources to set up the induction centres and for a trial of the accommodation centres. We shall probably go out with contracts into the commercial world. I am therefore not in a position to indicate the amount of money involved. It will cost several million pounds to set up such centres and, indeed, run them. Overall, however, if we can have faster decisions, better integration of those who succeed and faster removals, that will bring enormous value for money from the investment put into the system.

There are no indications whatever that anything that we are planning breaches anyone's human rights. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. It could be argued that we are planning something similar to that which operates in four or five other EU countries, and they have no problems at all with human rights legislation. We are not taking away anyone's human rights.

We are running a system, however, and we are not running it as a soft touch. It will be visibly tough, transparently fair and crystal clear, so that people understand, when they arrive and make a claim, exactly what are their duties and rights. They have to make their claim in that knowledge.

As to the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I am not sure whether he was referring to the powers of the immigration service itself. There is no shortage of people complaining, but I am not aware of any complaints procedure of the sort he mentioned. I was not sure to which group of people he was referring. Perhaps he can to write to me on that matter.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, can the Minister be clearer regarding his description of entrants who are already in Britain outnumbering those who are not? What proportion of the 79,000 applicants in the last financial year were applicants at the border and what proportion were in-country applicants? Of the 79,000, what proportion came in originally by air, by sea, or by land, namely via the Channel Tunnel?

Finally, is there any advantage or disadvantage to being an in-country applicant for asylum rather than being an applicant at the border?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, whether they are in-country or port applicants, the number varies from month to month, as indeed does the nationality. The figures are about 60 per cent in-country applicants and 40 per cent applicants at the port. The majority are therefore in-country applicants.

The noble Lord asked whether there was an advantage. In one way, there is an advantage for an in-country applicant, namely, that we do not know when they arrived. It may be that they have been working illegally, knowing that they cannot work as an applicant for asylum. They are then perhaps picked up for some other reason—a traffic offence, an inspector's visit to a factory, or whatever—and then make the claim for asylum. It is difficult in those cicumstances to know precisely when they arrived in the country. To the extent that there is an advantage, it is in coming in clandestinely and working illegally, because if they come to the port and claim asylum they cannot work. That is the point to which I alluded in the Statement and which I have mentioned previously.

It is easier to work illegally in this country than in any other country in the European Union. Blocking off access to illegal working will reduce the pulling factor of the traffickers. If that could be balanced with managed migration, people coming in under quotas to some industries or under other schemes, based on their skills, would know in advance that if they want: to come to the UK to work there are schemes and programmes to which they should apply. They are then less likely to pay out thousands of pounds in bondage to traffickers to get them here to work illegally in the first place. In that way, we help to put the traffickers out of business.

Tackling illegal working is crucial. In a way, illegal working is the answer to the noble Lord's question, because that is where an advantage does lie.

Lord Campbell-Savours

My Lords, my noble friend's comments on introducing a properly regulated system of economic migration is to be positively welcomed. My noble friend will know that for many years many of us argued for such a system in the face of great opposition in the other place.

I welcome the Government's decision to introduce a national identity card pilot scheme in this area. That is what it is and we should not recoil from using such language. Why are DNA data not to be included on the card?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, we are still working on the card. Last week I visited the forensic science laboratory and saw what is available in terms of biometrics. That was not available 10 years ago and it is amazing what information can now be measured and included on such cards. However, this is a separate issue: we are replacing the standard acknowledgement letter which is open to fraud. Recently, a foreign national—I shall not say which one because it would be unfair—was stopped in his car. He had with him a price list of items from my department. It included the price of an immigration stamp, an entry clearance stamp and a standard acknowledgement letter. Those can be bought at a price. They are open to forgery and we want to eliminate that.

They are not proof of identity and we want to ensure that those seeking asylum are issued with a document which proves their identity. Perhaps the biometrics could enable a combination of fingerprints, which are digitally held, and signatures to be shown on the card either in chip form or in a two-dimensional bar code so that they cannot be read or forged by anyone. Perhaps it could also include a code for the reader, together with a photograph.

As I said to my noble friend and other noble Lords, the issue of identity is under active consideration.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that the reception centres will not be detention centres. In that context, will he make it clear that asylum seekers will no longer be held in prison? He has made it clear that those who do not attend the centres will receive no financial support. Does that not sound a little like Hobson's choice?

Without regaling the Minister with the misfortunes of the original Hobson, am I right in saying that he is putting before us a proposal in respect of which there is no room for discretion? Is he aware that many people from refugee-producing countries have relatives here already and there are strong principles of family solidarity? If someone should be entirely deprived of financial support for visiting a dying father, would that not risk appearing unjust and worsen the problems raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington?

Finally, will the Government think a little more before going ahead with legislation to restrict judicial review? The relationship between the powers of a sovereign Act of Parliament and the principles of natural justice have not been clarified in 800 years. In the past 800 years this country has been governed by some imprudent politicians. If all of those had been too prudent to raise the question, ought not the Home Secretary to think at least once more before wandering into this minefield? And when he does, will he consider the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolfe, in Home Secretary v. Fayed in 1996? If Parliament wishes to take a power to act unfairly, it must say so in express words. Is the Home Secretary ready to grasp that nettle?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, nothing in what I said in repeating my right honourable friend's Statement indicates that the Government are seeking to act unfairly. The rules will be crystal clear and transparent but visibly tough. The system will be more humane and fair for those in the country, but we will remove at a faster rate those who have no right to be here.

As regards prison, we will have all those concerned out of prison by the end of January. We have made a commitment to Cardiff prison to do so before Christmas and we will honour that. It relates only to immigration rules; sometimes other factors are involved and I do not want to mislead the House. We will not be using ordinary prisons, in the normal sense of the word, from the end of January. We will have a greater detention capacity in any event.

It might be Hobson's choice but as regards those who seek support we are changing the nature of support to that of accommodation centres only. As I indicated, some 30 per cent do not seek support and go to live with relatives. They will still receive their smart card and they will be tracked. They will be required to attend at the reporting centres more frequently than at present. That is not onerous or unfair: it is us keeping in touch with them. They are making a claim but they are not requiring support. Therefore, they would not be offered places at accommodation centres.

In any event, we would have no contact with them other than to inform them when their interviews are or when decisions are being made. Sometimes such people move address and do not tell us but they have a responsibility to tell us where they are living if they are not in state-sponsored support. That is part of the purpose of the faster tracking. It will not interfere with families giving support—far from it.

As regards judicial review, I do not believe that we have been unfair. We will bring legislation before the House and we can have longer debates on it.