I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will he convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government motion to disagree, and Lords amendment No. 12 and the Government motion to disagree. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 involve privilege.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would place on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a

statutory duty to establish a panel of advisers whose function would be to befriend and advise asylum seekers under the age of 16 who arrive in this country unaccompanied by an adult.

The House will be aware that the amendments were passed on Report in the other place and reflect the widely felt and understandable concern that we should be seen to be doing all we can to protect the interests and welfare of unaccompanied child asylum seekers. The Government understand, respect and share that concern.

Our decision not to accept the two amendments is not based on any lack of sympathy for unaccompanied children arriving in this country. As I shall show shortly, we intend to meet in a very practical manner the spirit and purpose of the proposals by Lord Brightman, who moved the amendments in another place. Let me take this early opportunity to thank the noble Lord and commend him for his courteous advice and helpful guidance on such matters.

I should also make it clear that our decision is not based on questions of cost. The amendments would create a charge on public funds and, if this House disagrees with the amendments, the formal reason which will have to be given is that they infringe the privileges of this House.

However, as I will show shortly, the Government are prepared to provide resources to help meet the needs of those children in what we believe is a more appropriate way. Therefore, cost is not the issue.

The Government are as determined as anyone to see that the immigration status of such children is resolved with the minimum of delay and stress, and that the proper arrangements are made for their care, accommodation, health and education needs. The real point of difference between the Government's approach and the approach adopted in the amendments is that we do not believe that the creation of a statutory panel of advisers is the best way to protect the interests of this group of children.

I will refer in a moment to our own view of how that should be achieved, but first I want to explain why we do not believe that including a statutory requirement in the Bill for the creation of a panel of advisers and the assignment of an adviser to every asylum-seeking child is either necessary or desirable.

The amendments envisage that the adviser would give advice to the young asylum seeker on immigration matters and on a range of welfare issues, including accommodation, health and education. Dealing first with immigration matters, there may be a belief that, without an adviser to protect their interests, unaccompanied children are at risk of being sent to countries where they may be in danger of persecution or where there is no one to look after them.

I can assure the House that any such fears are misplaced and unfounded. In the first place, the 1951 convention on refugees applies to children in exactly the same way that it applies to adults. The strict issue to be resolved in determining a claim for asylum is the same for a child as it is for an adult—would his removal result in his being sent to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened?

Over and above that asylum issue, simple humanity demands that any immigration decision to remove an unaccompanied child involves consideration of whether safe and adequate reception arrangements for the child can be made. We would not send an unaccompanied child to another country, whether or nor that child had claimed asylum, unless we were satisfied that such arrangements had been made.

Of course we recognise that children who are claiming asylum may need help with the presentation of their cases to the Home Office. The Home Office already funds the refugee legal centre to provide advice to asylum seekers and representation in asylum appeals. That body is currently developing a team of counsellors designated to dealing with vulnerable applicants, including children.

Those counsellors will he specialists in asylum procedures and in preparing and presenting cases. They will have access to a considerable body of knowledge about conditions in countries from which asylum seekers come. We do not believe that it would be sensible for a panel of advisers to seek to duplicate that role.

Meeting the longer-term welfare needs of the child is clearly the responsibility of the appropriate local authority. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 make no distinction on the basis of a child's nationality or immigration status. They apply in the same way to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as they apply to any other child in this country who has no responsible adult capable of looking after his welfare and interests.

There is a statutory duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of all the children they look after and to satisfy themselves that the welfare of privately fostered children is satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. In other words, the function which the amendments would confer on a new panel of advisers is already part of the statutory function of a local authority.

The local authority is the body best placed in terms of personnel, experience, facilities and resources to care for the needs of unaccompanied children. To create a new statutory' body charged with those functions could create a duplication of effort and blur lines of responsibility.

The amendments appear to recognise that risk by stating that nothing in the two new clauses affects the powers or duties of local authorities. However, as the primary responsibility is to continue to rest with the local authority, it is difficult to see why the functions of the proposed adviser need to be placed on a statutory basis.

The Minister prayed in aid the role of the children's legal centre. He will know that it has advocated a guardianship system or a panel of advisers along the lines of the Brightman amendment.

As I hope to demonstrate to the House, what we propose in the way of a panel of advisers will meet with the approval of the refugee legal centre and other interested parties.

The amendments envisage that the panel will include, so far as is practicable, persons who can speak the child's language, who are familiar with the habits and customs of the child's homeland and who have knowledge of child care legislation and immigration procedures.

We recognise that local authority social services departments may need help in some or several of those aspects, but the extent and nature of the help that is needed will vary from case to case. There may be cases in which the involvement of a person with specialised background knowledge of the child's own country and language is of help both to the child and to the social services, but there might equally be cases in which the local authority is able to meet that need from within its own resources, and the involvement of a separate adviser is unnecessary and might even be counter-productive.

4 pm

Moreover, unaccompanied children might arrive from anywhere in the world and it would not be possible to guarantee—indeed, it seems quite unlikely—that any statutory panel of advisers could provide for every child a person who had the relevant language skills and background knowledge. It is difficult to see how the appointment of an adviser without those qualifications would materially assist the child.

A statutory requirement for the appointment of an adviser for every unaccompanied asylum-seeking child therefore seems too rigid. What is needed is a system which can operate flexibly to provide appropriate response to the needs of each child, to fill gaps where they exist, and to avoid creating duplication of effort or confusion of responsibilities where gaps do not exist. There are existing responsibilities covering all the needs of children in that position. Inevitably, different needs are covered by different services.

We believe that the crucial task is to ensure that those different services mesh together properly and that those providing the services have the support and specialised advice that they need. It is vital to mobilise and harness the potential sources of help within the various communities that are already here. We believe that those ends will be better achieved by supporting practical, non-statutory initiatives rather than by imposing a new statutory framework that might conflict with other statutory requirements.

The Home Office has agreed in principle to fund a non-statutory panel of advisers, which the Refugee Council has offered to establish and administer. The advisers would be volunteers from the communities from which most children could be expected to come, selected for their suitability for that role, and given the necessary training.

It is envisaged that, when an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child arrives in this country or comes to the notice of the Home Office when they are already in this country and applying, as some do, the immigration officer or the Home Office would notify both the appropriate social services department and the administrator of the new panel, who would offer the services of an adviser to the social services department wherever that was possible and desirable.

The function of the adviser would principally be to ensure that the social services department was aware of the child's wishes and of relevant cultural considerations and that the child understands as far as possible, taking his or her age into account, what is happening and what choices he or she has.

The agreement to fund the panel of advisers is necessarily for one year in the first instance, but that does not indicate any lack of commitment on the Government's part to the longer term view. Public expenditure decisions have to be taken on an annual basis. There is no way in which I can give the House a cast-iron guarantee of a specific level of support in future years, particularly in relation to a new commitment that has not featured in our earlier spending plans, but we certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable the concept of children's advisers to have a fair period of trial.

We believe that the scheme will—

The Minister contradicted himself. I have been taking down some of the points that he has been making. He said, "Cost is not the issue." He has now gone on to say that he cannot give any forward cost commitments. What is the position? Is cost the issue or one of the issues?

I have made it perfectly clear that cost is not the issue. I have explained that I am able to specify only what will be offerred in the first year. I cannot give any guarantees. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) understands how the Treasury functions, and he understands the rules in these matters. It is not possible for me, particularly with an entirely new operation such as this, to give detailed promises for future years. What I can do is to repeat what I have already said to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me, as he sought to intervene.

We certainly intend to give the scheme sufficient support to enable the concept of children's advisers to have a fair period of trial. That is what is most important. The scheme will provide a person to act as a friend and adviser. That will offer a better, more flexible way in which to meet the identified needs of some children than would a statutory scheme. The funding of the proposed Refugee Council panel of advisers is part of a package of Government proposals for supporting and strengthening the ability of existing services to deal with the needs of those children.

The Minister appears to suggest that the Home Office will fund the Refugee Council's scheme during the first year. What would happen if a larger number of unaccompanied children than expected arrived? Would the council be expected to fund that excess by cutting other funding, or would the Home Office be prepared to increase its grant to enable the council to continue that scheme?

We shall see as we go along. The purpose of the trial period is to match events with our experience. The Refugee Council will operate the panel and, together, we have considered the experience of recent years and the number of unaccompanied juvenile arrivals seeking asylum. We shall watch matters as they go and respond accordingly. We have told the council that we will provide the funding for the first year and then see how it goes.

I realise that time is pressing, and I should like to outline the other initiatives that we have taken. First, in the very near future, the Department of Health will issue to all local authority social services departments a practice guide entitled "Refugee and Asylum Seeking Children Alone in the United Kingdom". It will also issue a training package addressing the training needs of staff working with children outside their culture and families. That should raise awareness of those issues and help the development of the necessary expertise.

Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend will add to the immigration rules guidance on the treatment of asylum applications by children. I have already received constructive comments on a first draft of those rules on behalf of the Children's Legal Centre, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the British Refugee Council and the Save the Children Fund.

Thirdly, we will continue and will put on a more formal basis the arrangements by which the immigration service notifies social services of the arrival, or expected arrival, of groups of unaccompanied children. That will help to ensure that any danger of children falling between the responsibilities of the different services is minimised.

Fourthly, we propose to set up a more formal mechanism, also with that aim in mind, so that when an unaccompanied child is given temporary admission to the United Kingdom, all the relevant details of that child, his circumstances of arrival, links with the United Kingdom and so on will be passed to the social services department for the area in which he will stay, whether or not that child is already in the care of social services.

Fifthly, we recognise that it is desirable to resolve the immigration status of unaccompanied children as swiftly as possible, so that they and the authorities responsible for their care should not be left in doubt for any longer than is absolutely necessary. We are therefore making arrangements to identify such cases and give them priority treatment within the asylum division.

Sixthly, on 3 February, my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary, announced his intention to provide a special grant to assist local authorities that face exceptional costs arising from the presence in their areas of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. The distribution of such children is inevitably uneven, with particular concentrations near the airports and in certain London boroughs. The new grant recognises those pressures and is further evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that the statutory services are able to respond effectively to the needs of those children.

Seventhly, the British Red Cross is compiling a register of unaccompanied children who come to this country to facilitate eventual reunion with their families, where possible. The Home Office and the Department of Health will co-operate fully with the Red Cross in the compilation of that register.

Those seven measures demonstrate our commitment to protect the interests of unaccompanied children and our concern to find sensible and workable ways in which to do that.

Amendment No. 12 appears to have been inserted in another place by mistake. It states:

"Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge … on public funds".

s Such an amendment is usually inserted in Bills commencing in another place to avoid infringement of the privileges of this House. The Bill has financial implications which mainly arise from the administration of a new system of asylum appeals. Therefore, the amendment should be rejected.

As we discuss the Lords amendments, the House has its first chance to debate asylum in the light of events during the past few weeks. It gives us all, regardless of party, the opportunity to condemn the divisive and self-seeking speech of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) last weekend. I hope that the new Home Secretary has had the chance to reconsider the equivocal and slippery response that he made immediately after that speech and will now condemn it without qualification. As the debate progresses, he will have a chance to do so.

The rich vein of prejudice tapped by the hon. Member for Davyhulme in order to improve his chances of selection under the redrawn boundaries is strong and deep in the Conservative party. I hope that the Home Secretary finds the personal and political courage to confront and condemn that deep strain in his party.

My hon. Friend should give way to the Home Secretary.

I should be pleased to do so if the Home Secretary wished to intervene.

The Home Secretary joins the procession of faces whose leadership pretensions have meant that immigrants and even desperate asylum seekers have been viewed not as people but as political footballs to be kicked around in front of the Tory faithful. The previous Home Secretary sought to establish his credibility with the xenophobic right by making life harder for anyone seeking a visitor visa, for students, mothers, the elderly and people coming to this country for marriage ceremonies, christenings or visits to relatives.

That was the tough vested interest taken on by the previous Home Secretary in immigration and asylum. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was another graduate from the smarm school and, aided by the tabloid newspapers, he conducted a scurrilous campaign to play the race card just before the last general election. We all expect that that card will be played again before the next one.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 provide a chance for a new leaf to be turned. I hope that the new Home Secretary will not fail that test, as he failed the test last week. I hope that the message is heard and understood by black and Asian communities up and down Britian. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 show the two-faced approach of Conservative policy—how easily the smile on the Conservative face which is displayed to settled communities in Britain quickly turns to a snarl when another audience is addressed. Perhaps there has never been a Home Secretary more suited to or practised in playing such a role.

A clear moral lead is necessary at this stage in the nation's history. Let us hope that the new Home Secretary provides that lead unequivocally and does not show the slipperiness that he displayed last weekend.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 show that nowhere are such short-term, hand-to-mouth policies more evident than in the very flawed Bill. We opposed the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and now even their Lordships have sought to leave an opening or two for the Conservatives to mitigate the Bill's worst defects. The Minister today rejected the statutory scheme to look after child asylum seekers and offered a voluntary non-statutory alternative. That is not good enough for the Opposition.

Perhaps we are being a little mistrustful—why should we not accept the Minister's assurances? Why should the assurances have to appear in the Bill? Why should we not trust the Conservative Government? Part of the answer lies in what the Conservatives have been cooking up with other Ministers in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said earlier, European immigration Ministers met in Copenhagen last week. No statements have been given to the House about that. Many of us thought that today's debate might be curtailed by a statement from the Minister about that Copenhagen meeting—

There is never a statement.

The Minister makes my point for me when he says, from a sedentary position, that there never is a statement. The whole European dimension of immigration and asylum policy takes place in secret: to use the Minister's words, there is never a statement.

Order. I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but would he be good enough to tell me which Lords amendments he is speaking to at the moment?

I am making the point, Madam Speaker, that we need the assurances that the amendments seek on the face of the Bill. The amendments try to include in the Bill certain clear statutory obligations, but the Government are trying to avoid such obligations by opposing the Lords amendments.

So, what was decided in the secret conclave last week? First, Ministers rejected an appeal from Sadako Ogata, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for the right of family reunions—

The hon. Gentleman says in one breath that the Copenhagen deliberations were held in secret; in the next, he lists what happened there. I assume that he has seen the press release from the general secretariat of the Council which outlines all the decisions that were taken. He also knows full well that the usual practice since 1986 following such meetings has been that, in response to a written answer, details of decisions are given to the House and placed in the Library.

I hope that the Minister is not claiming that he has already given an answer to a written question and that Members should have seen it before this debate. They could not possibly have done so, as this is our first day back.

Hon. Members often mention to you, Madam Speaker, in points of order, that it is not satisfactory that the business of the Government should be reported in press releases or planted questions. When matters of policy and strategy are at stake, they should be reported to the House and statements on them should be made on the Floor of the House.

I was referring to the appeals from Mrs. Ogata in respect of the right of family reunion, which she suggested should be extended to the few thousand Bosnians given temporary admission to the EC. I understand from press reports—not from any communication from the Government—that EC Ministers agreed on guidelines for the admission of particularly vulnerable people from the former Yugoslavia. I understand that their recommendations were:

"As far as possible, arrangements will be made for contacts to be maintained with close relatives"—

that is, with spouses and children.

"In exceptional circumstances, in particular on humanitarian grounds, provisional permission to stay may be granted for this purpose".

The implication is that Bosnian victims of atrocities, many of them children, will not usually be allowed to bring their families to join them in the host country.

These restrictions on children come on top of the Government's appalling record of failing to meet even their own derisory quotas for Bosnian refugees. We were assured in November 1992 that 1,000 people and their dependants could be accepted to this country—a small contribution—

Order. I must call the hon. Gentleman to order again, because I fear that he is not relating what he is saying to the Lords amendments. This is not a general Second Reading debate. We are dealing with just three Lords amendments, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he says directly to them.

My point has to do with children being granted in the Bill a statutory right which is evident in the amendments—

Order. Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to which part of the amendments he is referring? I am reading them carefully even as he speaks, and he could help me by telling me which section of the amendments he is speaking to.

I am dealing with the amendments in their entirety.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking generally, but we are not on Second Reading. He must address specific points in the amendments.

The amendments refer to the statutory responsibilities that we hope will be placed on the Government. They relate to the dependants of many Bosnians who have not yet been allowed into the country. The Government promised that 1,000 people plus their dependants, many of whom are children and many of whom will be caught by the legislation, would be allowed in.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 must be incorporated in the Bill because, although we respect the Minister, assurances on this matter are not sufficient. I am afraid that, once again, I must query the Government's track record on assurances, especially in terms of the United Nations convention on the rights of children. The Government have entered reservations on that convention and many organisations and individuals have asked for them to be rescinded. Those reservations exempt the United Kingdom from implementing articles pertaining to immigration and nationality.

Those issues are relevant to the children who are currently separated from their families in the former Yugoslavia and they affect the implementation of several articles. Article 3 states:

"In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

United Kingdom immigration law does not take any account of the welfare of children.

Article 2 provides that all the convention's rights apply to all children and not merely to those to whom the Government wish the rights to apply. Contrary to article 12 on a child's right to be heard, refugee children are treated like adults in the United Kingdom refugee determination process and are thus denied a proper opportunity to express their views and their wishes.

The Government's track record is one of the reasons why the Opposition wish to see these amendments in the Bill. The legislation must contain the responsibilities and the duties that we want to press the Government to carry out. If the amendments are accepted, they will ensure, for the first time in the United Kingdom, a realistic and comprehensive service for child asylum seekers. The adoption of that service would lead to a profound change from the way that the asylum services have operated since Britain signed the United Nations convention on refugees. We have an opportunity to put into law the principles that should govern our treatment of children as a distinct social group requiring specific attention.

Many people who come to our shores through the air and sea ports arrive full of fear, without friends, not speaking the language and with no one to look after them. They enter a wholly different culture. Many of them are traumatised by their experiences. Sadly, there are many examples that I could give the House, but I shall give one example of a person who would be assisted by the amendments. Tamba, a 13-year-old girl from Eritrea, was put on a plane to the United Kingdom by her mother to save her life. The home of Tamba's grandparents, to which she had been sent for safety after she had been assaulted on three occasions by soldiers, had been bombed. The soldiers had threatened to return to her village to find her and, after the bombing of her grandparents' home, Tamba's mother felt that she had no choice but to send the child away.

I am sure that the Home Secretary and his Ministers will have to deal with many such heart-rending stories. I hope that they will bear in mind, in assessing Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2, that it would be of great assistance, not merely to such victims but to the organisations that seek to help them, to have in the Bill provisions to which we would have to adhere. That would enable us to test the Government's assurances and good will. We are not talking about an insignificant problem. In 1990, there were 128 children in that position. In 1992, there were 185. The latest statistic that we have, from a parliamentary question, shows that, to April 1993, there were 62 children.

indicated assent.

I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that.

If the reports are true, the British Government, together with other European Community Governments, have adopted a restrictive policy on family reunion. Does not what my hon. Friend has said show that, in months and years to come, as more unaccompanied children come to the United Kingdom, there will be a need for liberal policies on family reunion, rather than such harsh and restrictive policies? Is not it about time that the Minister intervened to tell us clearly what the British Government's policy is on family reunion and what harmonisation of those policies mean?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and will be glad to give way to the Minister, or to the Home Secretary, if he cares to answer that question. Sadly, given all the conflicts and political disruptions around the world, I am afraid that it is likely that the number of children caught in such conflicts is unlikely to diminish, and it may increase. It is particularly important that the rules, whether they are harsh or tough, are written in the Bill for all to see, rather than being subject to good will or assurances, which sadly, in too many cases in the past, have not been forthcoming when tested in the extreme under the Government.

Hitherto, we have treated child asylum seekers as adults. The UNHCR and the Children Act 1989 recognise that as a serious problem. The UNHCR, along with the British Refugee Council, Amnesty International and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants recognise and have argued that children such as Tamba and many others in similar positions should not be treated as adults by immigration officials.

In private, many immigration officials have accepted that they do not have social work or child care skills. They feel that the best that they can do is to pass those children on to voluntary and local authority organisations. However, despite the efforts that local authorities put in to looking after those children, many cannot provide the assistance that they may need. There are no formal rules or a comprehensive plan that links social services departments with immigration officials.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the system for dealing with unaccompanied child refugees is a positive disincentive on any local authority to take on the responsibility for such children, as the authority knows that it will cost it a great deal of money, which it is not likely to get back from central Government—

Shame.

It is all very well for the Minister to say "Sr j 3–5hame", as he is not the one to have to take on that responsibility. His Government have consistently refused to fund inner-London local authorities, which have needed help to deal with those poor, unfortunate children. His Government cast those children on to the streets, not local authorities.

As so often happened in Committee, my hon. Friend has made the point that I was about to come to far more eloquently than I could. We need to ensure that local authorities—this is separate from the clause and I am conscious of the need not to go out of order—are properly funded in the duties that they undertake.

Adopting Lords amendments 1 and 2, which would establish a statutory children's panel, would help children through the complex procedure now being established in the Bill. The panel will be able to help children through the legal process and explore a better understanding of their needs. It will go some way to combining the 1989 United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act to ensure that children's rights are respected.

We have an opportunity to reflect the needs of the child in the refugee determination procedures, and we should take it. I call on the Government, even at this very late stage, to drop their opposition to a statutorily based children's panel.

4.30 pm

It is interesting to note that section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states:

"When a court determines any question with respect to—(a) the upbringing of a child …

the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration."

In Committee, the Minister said that that Act did not extend to immigration hearings. However, child asylum seekers may have to go to the High Court or the Appeal Court for judicial review of their asylum claims. That is unacceptable to all those involved in immigration cases, except the Minister. He still has time to change his mind, accept that the child's interests should be paramount and accept the Lords amendments.

The children's panel will provide as comprehensive a service as it can, even on the proposed non-statutory basis. It will certainly provide considerably more than what is available at present. It will be able to meet children as soon as they arrive and assist them in their search for legal advice and proper care until their families are found or their future lives properly planned.

Wendy Ayotte of the Children's Legal Centre said:

"Unless the government accepts some responsibility, how can it expect local authorities to provide anything more than the most basic needs of children who need a great deal of special help?"

We are—if it needs to be stressed again—dealing with children with profound problems. Many of them are traumatised; many have lost parents or had a bloody separation from them in a foreign land. They are ill equipped to deal with the environment in which they find themselves.

We are all aware of the economic mess that the Government have created. However, for a very small amount of money a great deal of human misery could be alleviated if the Government do the job properly. We cannot any longer leave children solely dependent on local authorities for care. The Government must accept their share of what is an international responsibility. To date, Ministers have tended to leave us all in the dark. From the outset, they have not shown any support for the principle embodied in the Lords amendments, which makes us a little suspicious of their sudden conversion to a non-statutory scheme. In fact, their prevarication is one reason why the Bill has taken so long to come back before the House.

It is not sufficient to have a non-statutory scheme. In many cases the Government, through the Bill, have created the problems, so it is only right that they should support the solutions to those problems. I hope that they will support the Lords amendments and not opt for a non-statutory scheme. They should join Labour Members in supporting the proposals to aid those children—the most vulnerable individuals—as they seek asylum and refuge in our country.

This is the last appearance of the Bill before the House. It behoves us to recall that the substance of the Lords amendments were adumbrated a long time ago, even before the general election, when the previous Bill was before Parliament. It bears witness to the tenacity of purpose of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have sought to ensure that the Government's Bill to tighten control over asylum seekers would not lead to a worsening of the administrative procedures for the handling of applications by children.

It is right to pay tribute to the work done in that respect before the Dissolution by Sir Philip Goodhart, then Conservative Member of Parliament for Beckenham who—along with many other Conservative Members—was quick to point out to the Government the need for special arrangements to ensure that the difficulties faced by children seeking to apply for asylum, which are certainly greater than those of adults, are taken into account by the Home Office.

The two amendments drafted and passed in another place reflect the consensus that was developing across the Committee that considered the Bill that it would be desirable to provide special representation for children, who are afflicted with difficulties in understanding procedures that, quite properly, must be operated quickly when children arrive in this country and seek asylum. I refer to their fear of officialdom, language problems, and the difficulty of not knowing who is speaking for them. It is fair to say that the Minister has understood those problems all along. The question is how best to resolve them.

It is proper to recognise the relatively limited scale of the administrative challenge posed by children seeking asylum. The problem has been greatly exaggerated— perhaps more so by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who introduced the original Bill, then even his successor. However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, that was in a period when a general election was overhanging, and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley may have seen some advantage in whipping up concern.

In the event, the number of those seeking asylum in this country has proved to be far fewer than in other western European countries. Whereas events in Bosnia and eastern Europe in particular led to the Federal German Republic facing vastly increased numbers of asylum seekers—the figure runs into hundreds of thousands—the latest official figures available show that between last January and November, the United Kingdom admitted 23,390 asylum seekers, of whom a mere 129 were children. That reminds us that we are not dealing with a massive administrative problem, but that it would be unacceptable to sweep the matter aside because it affects relatively few people.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not conclude his remarks without making some reference to his party's view on the comments made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), particularly given the record of some of his colleagues in Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets. It may be useful to have something on the record from the hon. Gentleman's party.

I am not one to rush into using consideration of detailed amendments concerning the rights of children to seek asylum to make a general statement about race relations and the comments of a Conservative Member. However, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in question to express my views in no uncertain terms and I shall be happy to provide the hon. Member for Nottingham, North with a copy of that letter. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that my views are no less robust than his own. However, at this stage I prefer to confine my remarks to the subject of children seeking asylum.

As the Minister knows, I am particularly interested in that aspect and I take this opportunity to thank him for the way in which he undertook in Committee to consider the proposal for the statutory provision of a panel along the lines followed by Lord Brightman in another place.

I also thank him for the courteous and thoughtful way in which he listened to the arguments that I deployed when I went to see him with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). From what he said on that occasion and earlier this afternoon, I have no doubt that he has put his mind

It is unfortunate that we are legislating for asylum in this manner. At the very last gasp of the Bill, the Government have announced seven administrative steps to ameliorate consideration of the issues; seven ways in which local authorities are reminded of their responsibilities and given guidance on how to handle them; seven ways in which the immigration rules are amended to take account of the handling of children's applications; and seven ways in which the formal mechanisms for handling temporary admissions by local authorities are to be handled. That kind of administrative response should have preceded the legislation, rather than coming after it. If the amendments had been in place, tried out and seen to work, it is conceivable that much of what the Government are now doing would not be necessary and that the vast amount of parliamentary time taken up by the Bill would have been saved.

Many of the problems involved in the managing of asylum seekers are of an administrative nature. At best, the Government's motive in bringing this legislation was to deal with the problem of backlog. Many believe that, given resources, new administrative priorities and the guidelines which have finally been extracted in respect of children, it would have eliminated, or greatly reduced and contained, the problem of asylum seeking—and wrongful asylum seeking—being confined as it was.

We are at the beginning of a new Home Office regime and—I suspect—a long way away from the next general election. I hope that party political considerations will prompt the Government less in matters concerning race and immigration than they have in the past. At the beginning of this new Administration, may I urge the Minister, as I would have said to the Home Secretary if he were still here—I was glad to see him here at the beginning of the debate—to look before he leaps, not to be rushed into legislation where it is not strictly required and not to seek to change the law on immigration and race just for the sake of a cheap headline and of ensuring that the most atavistic instincts of certain sections of our community are fed by the Home Office? That is not the way to advance good race relations.

I wish the Home Secretary well in his new job and I am glad that he came to the House for the opening of this debate; I understand that Cabinet Ministers are not usually able to sit throughout entire debates. I have known the Home Secretary for many, many years—even in his pre-legislative life as a lawyer—and I know that he takes a genuine interest in many of the matters for which he will have high political responsibility.

The crucial issue that we will have to decide when we vote tonight is whether what the Government propose for the handling of children's applications is sufficient. The Minister knows that I have strongly argued that a statutory scheme would have benefits. First, it would make it clear that there was a duty to be discharged by members of the panel and would give such a panel a status that would assist the other bodies with statutory responsibilities for handling such matters. It is inevitable that the immigration authorities, immigration officers, local authorities and social workers will continue to handle these cases.

I never believed that the setting up of an advisory panel to assist the children by acting as advocates should diminish the responsibilities of local authority officers and immigration officers; but the establishment of panels of experts would recognise that no local authority—or very few—could conceivably have the necessary range of linguistic expertise, or background knowledge of the circumstances which led a child to flee from a foreign country.

4.45 pm

I think that the Government recognise that such expertise cannot exist within a local authority. Some local authorities may have acquired this expertise—for example, those within the environs of an airport. If they have, so much the better, but it is possible that most local authorities will not have acquired such expertise and will value the help of the panels which would be set up under the administrative arrangements that the Minister has proposed in place of the statutory arrangements approved in another place.

Only two issues of principle on the statutory scheme make it preferable. First, it gives some stability which, inevitably, an administrative scheme of the kind that the Minister has outlined cannot give. The Minister said that we should see how it works and then judge its effectiveness. It is right that we should do that. In time, it may come to seem so clearly a part of the system that the Minister may choose some other legislative opportunity to put it on a statutory basis. That sort of development is not unknown.

The second reason for ensuring that the scheme is on a statutory basis which still commends itself to me—and if the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) intends to press the matter to a Division, I shall support him—is the question of finance. If a statutory body is established, finance will be made available for it to discharge its statutory function. The Minister is right to say that he cannot give an undertaking about expenditure beyond the current year—we know that very well—but the best way in which to ensure that the necessary resources are forthcoming is to provide a statutory body which enjoys the backing of the full Government and which must therefore be funded. That seems to be a conclusive argument in favour of a statutory scheme.

I am grateful to the Refugee Council and the Children's Legal Centre for the helpful role that they have played throughout our debates. I have no doubt that they, particularly the Refugee Council, will be under financial pressure at some point as a result of the legislation. I hope, therefore, that their additional responsibilities will be reflected in additional funding.

I am glad that we have moved as far as we have down the road towards recognising the particular needs of children asylum seekers and that we are setting up a system of guidance, guardianship and advocacy, by administrative means, to take account of those needs. A modest change has been brought about by means of an immensely protracted debate, keenly fought in a number of different forums. That the battle has been at least partially won by those who are concerned about children asylum seekers is a cause for some satisfaction. If the Minister could bring himself to take that further step, I know that he would satisfy the whole House.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), whose sincerity in these matters is exceeded only by the length of his speeches, is naive if he believes for one moment that Conservative Members, particularly those who sit on the Treasury Bench, are motivated by anything other than party political considerations when they deal with asylum and immigration policy.

This squalid little Bill, the Lords amendments to which we are considering this afternoon, was born out of party political considerations. It is being considered at a time when party political considerations have precluded Conservative Members, particularly those who sit on the Treasury Bench and upon whom the responsibility lies, from condemning roundly the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for the appalling speech that he made only a few days ago. That speech, which received so much publicity, was disreputable and it did neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party any credit. It has poisoned the atmosphere of race relations in this country.

When one looks at the climate into which the children with whom these amendments are concerned will be arriving and at the climate into which they will be required to go when they attend school and attempt to lead some semblance of a normal life, after the trauma that led to their flight to this country in the first place, one realises that that trauma can only be increased by the hon. Gentleman's speech.

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Davyhulme did not have the courtesy to be in his place this afternoon. He is only too well aware of the concern that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel about his utterances. He must be only too well aware of the fact that his speech will be referred to during the debate, Therefore, it is all the more reprehensible that he has not had the guts to come along and hear what is said.

Equally reprehensible is the Minister's silence. I know that he abhors, as strongly as any Opposition Member, the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Davyhulme. I do not for one moment call into question the Minister's sincerity and integrity in promoting good race relations. Therefore, I hope that he will come to the Dispatch Box soon and condemn his hon. Friend's speech. Both I and other Opposition Members—and, I know, Conservative Members—have been inundated with correspondence from constituents, particularly constituents from the Asian community who have been shocked, affronted and deeply hurt and wounded by the hon. Gentleman's speech and the Government's reticence in condemning it.

Although I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said, does he agree that the deafening silence of the Prime Minister, following the repugnant remarks of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), was deeply worrying? If the Prime Minister was truly shocked by what the hon. Gentleman said, would not a practical demonstration of that repugnance have been for the Conservative party to withdraw the Whip from the hon. Member for Davyhulme?

Order. Before the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) continues his speech, may I remind him and the House that we are dealing with specific Lords amendments? This is neither the time nor the place to go into other matters. I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for those matters to be raised properly.

I am sure that that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward tomorrow afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time to the Prime Minister taking the opportunity to denounce the hon. Member for Davyhulme—unless, of course, the Prime Minister is so preoccupied with his own parlous position that, once again, it slips his mind.

The amendments are welcome. I refer not only to the Lords amendments but to those that stand in the names of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are welcome, because they highlight the plight of children and young people as refugees, and also the plight of those caught up in the crisis in Yugoslavia.

My constituency experience, however, is that of unaccompanied child refugees from Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The Minister knows, because there has been correspondence between myself and his Department, as well as with the Department of the Environment on the issue, that we have in our schools the highest ratio of children and young people from Somalia, whose very real needs have been met only as a result of considerable sacrifice and selflessness on the part of teachers, social workers and others in the London borough of Brent.

They have worked until now—it is still the case, although I am glad to hear that it will shortly be remedied —without any additional resources from central Government. It is therefore welcome that some resources, at any rate, are to be made available. One is anxious that they should come on tap as quickly as possible. We look forward to hearing from the Minister that this new money —and we want a guarantee that it will be new money—will be provided quickly and will be focused on the urgent needs of those young refugees.

The importance of the Lords amendment is that it seeks to put on a statutory basis that which the Government now say they are prepared to do, belatedly and under pressure, on a voluntary basis. It is important that it should be put on a statutory basis. It provides the clearest indication of the Government's commitment to this issue. It promises continuity and the stability of provision. It also ensures that the Government put their money where their mouth is. Without the provision of resources, it is difficult to believe that the Government's commitment will be worth the paper upon which it is written.

We are worried about how the voluntary scheme is to be established, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us. Will the Children's Legal Centre be fully involved and consulted? Will the British Refugee Council and other bodies working with children have additional resources to enable them better to do their job? What will be the mechanism for liaison between social services and those with specific responsibilities under the voluntary scheme?

5 Pm

My borough is not alone in finding that, after 6 pm, the police are the social services because of the constraint on local authority budgets. Refugees arrive at all times of the day and night. Those of us who represent boroughs adjacent to the main ports of entry know that there can be calls on the local authority social services departments literally at any time. Before we accept the Government's assurances, we want to hear more about how the voluntary scheme will work in practice.

This country's commitment under international law and under article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is clear. It is to ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration and that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies, those best interests are given the primacy of consideration that is their due. What better way to ensure that than by statute? It is not for nothing that the House of Lords passed the amendment. It recognised that the only way to ensure that the child's interests are paramount is to give the notion statutory backing.

We have a specific responsibility to children and young people. They are the most vulnerable sector of the refugee community. Their young lives are all too often shaped, twisted and distorted in ways that we can barely begin to imagine by the horror of their experiences in the countries from which they flee and by the trauma of their journey. We must ensure that on their arrival on these shores—they will already have had to overcome enormous barriers to get here—they find a genuine sanctuary and refuge and that, for a while at least, they have at their disposal someone with a statutory duty to relate to them as a friend.

It is not without significance that amendment No. 2 deals, which deals with the appointment of functions of the advisory panel, refers specifically to the notion of "befriending" a young person. I have never seen that word used in any statutory provision but, when we are talking about children who have undergone such experiences, it is right to ensure that they have a statutory right to have someone as their friend who will stand up for them against what can often be a hostile, oppressive and alien bureaucracy. It is right that the friend should have the backing of statute. When we give the House the opportunity to vote on the amendment, I hope that hon. Members will uphold it.

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I wish to associate myself with his remarks about the great anxiety caused to his constituents by the comments of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I know from my own experience in the past few days that the hon. Gentleman's remarks caused tremendous distress and anxiety to my constituents. The remarks were outrageous and reprehensible, and I am sad that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Prime Minister have not properly condemned them.

I was delighted when amendments 3 and 4 were made to the Bill in another place. Lord Brightman and Baroness Faithfull are to be congratulated on their hard work in building on our debates in Committee.

The benchmark of a civilised society is how we treat our children. An even greater standard is the way in which we treat other people's children, those who are fleeing traumatic and dangerous situations abroad. The provision of a statutory advisory panel, giving unaccompanied children who may have suffered bereavement, torture and travel to a country that they do not understand, access to an adult to advise and support them, would be progressive and humane.

It would help to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which emphasises that the child's best interests should be the primary consideration in any dealings that the state has with the child. The same principle is embodied in the Children Act 1989, which was so warmly welcomed by all parties. Therefore, given that the Government now appear to accept the principle and the difficulties that unaccompanied children face in such circumstances, it seems odd that they cannot put the provision on a statutory basis. If we have such statutory obligations to children, why not include this proposal in the Bill?

The advisory panel would provide support in dealing with local authority departments as well as immigration officials. It would certainly be in line with the well established practice in wardship cases of providing a guardian ad litem to young people.

The horrific experiences that befall refugees affect children as well as adults. We have recently seen many examples from the Bosnian conflict on our television screens. Amnesty International has documented some appalling cases in which children are, in their own right, victims of persecution and torture.

They are often threatened with torture and death by people who want to extract information from their parents. They may fear for their own lives because of civil war and attacks by repressive regimes. If parents are imprisoned, dead or missing, children must flee, helped by family and friends. Sometimes they must travel for long periods under hazardous conditions before reaching the United Kingdom.

Clearly, only exceptional circumstances would force children to undertake such dangerous and frightening journeys alone. What is the response when unaccompanied children manage to make that dangerous voyage? What faces them when they reach our country? When they come to Britain, they find that there is no special provision for them. Immigration officers, untrained in questioning children, interview them before deciding whether to grant them temporary admission. That interview is crucial to the determination of the child's case. If the child gets over that hurdle and is then given temporary admission, she or he is referred to a local authority which may not know anything about the child's refugee-related needs.

The British Refugee Council recently carried out a survey of the provision made by 17 local authorities, 16 of them London boroughs. It revealed that at least 25 children were held in detention by the immigration service on arrival and that 70 children had to wait up to three months before a local authority responded to their needs. At least 50 children were moved more than three times in their first three months in this country. That would be traumatic enough for any child, but for children who have encountered such dangers and who have had such experiences, how much more difficult and psychologically damaging must this trauma be?

Many children had no access to support from people of their own culture and language. It is not surprising that local authorities, however good their intentions, do not cope as well as they might with those children. Finding the necessary resources and expertise is yet another claim on overstretched budgets. Most individual authorities do not have the resources to sustain the breadth of expertise necessary to deal with the small number of children from a wide range of countries, cultures and languages. They need an advocate who would articulate their needs to ensure that they are met.

There are many examples of what happens to child refugees. The Refugee Council reported that a l5-year-old African refugee child formerly at a dedicated voluntary children's home was kept in Harmondsworth detention centre for a week following his arrival. He had no access to an interpreter for several days, and did not know where he was or why he was being kept there.

A boy of 15 from Zaire, who fled from civil war when his parents died, sought asylum at the port of entry. Immigration passed him on to the local authority social services department, which accommodated him overnight and referred him the next day to a refugee project as being a 16-year-old and therefore not in need. The project found him a place in a refugee hostel where he insisted—and he was believed—that he was 15. The local authority in the end acknowledged its wrong assessment and took him back. Those are just a couple of examples of the difficult situations that such children can face.

Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan), I offer my thanks to the Children's Legal Centre, Save the Children and the British Refugee Council for the good advice that we have received during the passage of the Bill.

What is the experience elsewhere? The experience of other European countries is instructive. The children's legal centre recently introduced a report entitled "Children or Refugees? A survey of west European policies on unaccompanied refugee children". It shows that, in France, each section of the body that determines refugee status has a person mandated to assess children's applications. In Belgium, children's applications are given priority; in Denmark, an assessor is nominated. In Sweden, the world leader in the treatment of children, immigration officers who conduct asylum interviews have received special training in interviewing children.

I noted the Minister's opening remarks about some of the administrative changes that he now proposes to introduce. I welcome them. They are long overdue, and it is a shame that we had to wait until the other place debated the issue and introduced the new clauses before the Minister proposed the changes.

If the Minister has such confidence in the proposals, and if they meet with the approval of all parties, why not write them on the face of the Bill? If that is not done, the suspicion must be that they will be temporary and that, when the year runs out or when there are funding difficulties, they will disappear. Can we have some directness on the matter? We press the Minister further about his intentions.

We are not talking about a great number of children. In 1992, 185 unaccompanied child asylum seekers applied for asylum at their point of entry. The provision is necessary for a small number of children in exceptional circumstances, such as those in 1990 during the fighting in Eritrea. The panel of advocates would have only a small cost implication, and the value to the children would far outweigh any cost.

Article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides:

"a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the state".

After all those children have been through, they surely deserve no less.

I was a member of the Committees on both the Asylum Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. We twice tried to introduce the amendment that was subsequently carried in the Lords. It is before us today, and the Government are trying to wriggle out of it.

indicated dissent.

The Minister indicates that he is not trying to wriggle out of it. If he is not, I am not entirely certain what his speech was about. Was he not trying to wriggle out of a statutory requirement to look after unaccompanied children when they seek asylum in this country?

The whole principle behind the demands that we made in both Committees was that unaccompanied children deserve special treatment, because they are refugees, because they are unaccompanied, because they are arriving in this country and because they are in danger of falling through all the various nets that are supposed to be constructed to defend children in such a vulnerable situation.

It is not so long ago that a number of unaccompanied children arrived in London at the airport, left the airport, having been admitted to the country—nobody gave a thought to what was going to happen to them once they walked through the immigration channels at Heathrow —and, somehow or other, landed up on church steps in my constituency. To the credit of the priests at the church, they immediately took the children in, fed them, clothed them, housed them and looked after them.

Subsequently my local authority took responsibility for them. It did not say, "We cannot afford it. We will not do it. These are unaccompanied children who deserve our help and understanding." They were most terribly distressed children, who did not know why they had left their own country, did not understand what had happened there and did not understand a word of English. It was only with great difficulty that interpreters were found to help them. I pay tribute to all those voluntary agencies that helped.

The point that those agencies made to me time after time was that those children deserved better than the good fortune of landing on the right church steps, at the right place and at the right time, with a good samaritan helping them out. When the lesson from that is learned, it must be that there has to be a legally appointed guardian from the point of arrival to look after those children. What do the Government say? "No, we do not need anything like that; we do not need any statutory requirement whatever".

In Committee on the first Bill, the Minister's predecessor went as far as to question why the children were unaccompanied in the first place. I will tell him and the House why. When people are living in extreme danger —in a state of war, where they might be killed for their political, social or religious beliefs—the first consideration is the safety of their children.

Jewish families in Germany sent their children into exile in the 1930s. They did not know what would happen to their children, but they felt that there was better hope for them outside Nazi Germany than inside it. Many of the children sent into exile were looked after, but, tragically, many more were not and died as a result.

Tragically, children all around the world face situations similar to those faced by children in Nazi Germany. We should do better than to weasel our way out—as the Minister seeks to do—of a proposal that has been agreed by all the agencies and all those who have some understanding and experience, and return to some kind of voluntary scheme.

The reason we are going for a non-statutory, voluntary scheme is that the Government are not prepared to pay the cost of the statutory scheme in the long run. The Government know that there may well be considerable numbers of unaccompanied children arriving in this country in the future. The Government know that, I know that, and everyone who looks at the horrors that exist in so many parts of the world knows that.

Is the solution to close the doors on everyone seeking asylum, or is it to go for an humanitarian system of assisting unaccompanied children and giving them a place of safety and a safe haven in this country? It is to be hoped that those children can be reunited with their parents who may be able to come to this country at a later stage.

With all that is going on around the world, I would have thought that the Minister could have shown today that he does not agree with what the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said. The Minister could have stood up against the vile, xenophobic and racist nonsense spoken by the hon. Gentleman, and show a spark of humanity in respect of unaccompanied child refugees.

I believe strongly in the issue. We debated it many times in Committee. I do not doubt that the payroll vote will be wheeled out in a few minutes' time and the Lords amendments will be defeated, and we will return to some kind of voluntary scheme. That is not satisfactory, and we shall return to the question of guaranteeing real support, real friendship and real protection for victims of the most appalling brutality and terror that exists around the world today.

In obedience to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not say much about the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), except to say that the debate is being conducted at a time when xenophobia has found a voice in many parts of Europe. It is most important that we should make it absolutely clear that we will take no part in the speaking of that language.

I want to feel that I live in a country where children who have been persecuted, who have seen their parents tortured and who have little hope in their own country receive a welcome. We should write into statute services that those children will most definitely need.

Reference has been made to several laws and conventions that would advance and enhance the position of such children—the 1951 United Nations convention, the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, and article 22 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so recently ratified by the United Kingdom, which states:

"Refugee children should receive protection and humanitarian assistance in enjoying their rights under this convention."

Our own Children Act 1990 states that the interest of children must be paramount. Does that apply only to our own children? Should not the interests of children from other countries also be paramount? In making what is, I suppose, a concession to the tremendous force of the arguments used in the other place, the Minister is making a nod in the direction of that concept, without having the courage to write such a provision into statute.

When I was Front-Bench spokesman with responsibility for children, I went to Hillingdon and talked to people dealing with refugees coming in. I have met child refugees from all parts of the world. I have always been amazed and appalled that, when it comes to child refugees, other European countries can get it right but we cannot. Other European countries have made enormous strides in establishing proper procedures for dealing with child refugees. We are once again bottom of the league, while other countries have statutory procedures giving children an advocate and a friend to whom they can refer for advice.

I do not know whether the Minister has met many child refugees. Does he know what they have been through and what they have suffered? Does he know of their great fear of coming to a country where they do not know the language? Many of them do not know what has happened to their parents, although they know that they may well be dead or that they are persecuted. Many parents put their children on a plane with someone merely to get them out of the country. Faced with the situation with which those parents are faced, we would all make such arrangements.

Such children have suffered enormously. They are traumatised and they need all the help that we can give them. But faced with those circumstances, what do we do? Immigration officers have the first bite. They are not trained to deal with child refugees. They have never received any training to help them to cope with children, but they decide whether children can be admitted and considered as applicants for asylum. I do not know how many children have been refused entry to this country.

When we do allow children in, we fingerprint them and treat them as criminals. When we have asked what is the justification for fingerprinting adult asylum seekers and seekers of refugee status, we have been told, "Fraudulent claims have been made for social security benefits." It is all in the Lords Hansard. But that does not apply to children. Before the last election, I asked specific questions about the number of child refugees who had been found guilty of fraud in relation to social security benefits. I was told that the answer was none. That being so, what is the rationale for fingerprinting children?

It is terribly frightening for a child to be fingerprinted. In most of the countries from which the children have come, fingerprinting is the prelude to torture and detention. Why do we have to fingerprint children? What is all that about? Surely we can look at that again.

As a civilised country, we ought to enshrine in statute certain services as of right. It would enhance the reputation of the Government, and of the Minister in particular, if the hon. Gentleman accepted the force of the arguments that were used in the other place, which were advanced from both sides of the House. For example, Baroness Faithfull, who is experienced in all questions of social work and who chairs the children's panel that many of us attend, made a moving speech in which she repeatedly drew attention to the bewilderment that child asylum seekers feel. We want to offer them some sort of security.

I read in today's edition of the Evening Standard that Somalian gunmen who attacked Pakistani troops used women and children as human shields to prevent the troops who were guarding a United Nations peacekeeping force at a feeding centre in Mogadishu from doing their job. Just imagine what children from such troubled parts of the world who end up here have been through.

There are not many of us left in the House who were evacuees within this country—and some went abroad—during the last war. We went only a few miles out of London and away from our homes—to escape the bombing and because our parents feared that this country would be invaded and wanted to make sure that we were safe.

My hon. Friend is well known for her interest in children, and I had the honour to work with her for a while. Let me reinforce what she says about the trauma that such children undergo. Last week, I was in Azerbaijan and visited a number of refugee camps in which there were a considerable number of children. Those refugees are Azeris in Azerbaijan; they are in their own country and are being protected; they are not starving. Yet the trauma among them is most evident. It must be a hundred times worse for a child to be a refugee in a strange country. I can verify absolutely from my own experience what my hon. Friend has said.

My hon. Friend has made my point for me. I was about to say that, as evacuees, we were in our own country and spoke the same language, albeit, perhaps, in different dialects. We knew a little of what was happening. We knew that our parents were alive, although we thought that they might be killed. The trauma will stay with those of us experienced evacuation as very small children for the rest of our lives. It was a terrifying experience. Imagine how much worse it is for children who come to a strange country whose language they do not speak, when they know that their parents are dead or are being tortured.

We are a civilised nation and are not poor—despite all the Government's efforts to make us into a poor country —yet we apparently cannot find the money to establish a statutory advice service for those children so that they can be assured of some service and can have some guarantee of protection.

When the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) refers to fingerprinting, I hope that she appreciates that many child asylum seekers, like other asylum seekers, apply for asylum without any means of identification. They have no documents. First and foremost, the process of fingerprinting is meant to establish an unshakeable identification. I respect the hon. Lady's work with children, and I entirely understand what she and other hon. Members have said in this debate about the traumatised state of many children who apply for asylum. However, as I explained earlier, we already have the provisions of the Children Act 1989.

5.30 pm

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that no account was taken of children in immigration law. However, he misses the point. Immigration law and the Geneva convention on refugees do not distinguish between applicants on the basis of age. So far as immigration is concerned, the same considerations apply. In all other respects with regard to children, the Children Act 1989 covers the welfare responsibilities as I have explained.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North began in his usual churlish fashion with some less than welcoming remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the new Home Secretary. To begin with, he found it a little difficult to remain in order in terms of this debate.

I want to respond to some of the remarks made about my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Those remarks, so far as I can see, have little to do with the Lords amendments that we are considering. If hon. Members listened to the radio or watched television last week, I hope that they will be aware of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I had to say about the matter.

I made it absolutely clear then, and repeat now, that I deplore any remarks which give rise to ethnic tensions. I took issue in the media last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme on two counts. The first was his assessment of the size and proportion of the ethnic population as a proportion of the entire population, and the second was his remarks about primary immigration.

Primary immigration ended years ago in this country. I will not enlarge upon that, because, if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would rule that I was straying out of order.

A constructive and healthy debate about immigration should be conducted regularly in the media and in this House.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not expand upon that.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to Bosnia. Again, he was straying a little out of order. He referred to the 1,000 ex-detainees and their dependants. He knows full well that the Government depend on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross for the number of people who have arrived so far.

In an intervention, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—I do not like to think of a debate of this kind in which the hon. Member for Bradford, West does not intervene— referred to family reunion.

I should make it absolutely clear, and I hope not to stray too far out of order as this point related to children, that, in respect of the 1,000 Bosnian ex-detainees, some of whom have already arrived, and their dependants, reunion with their families is being carried out simultaneously where that is possible. For those ex-detainees who arrive outside the normal immigration rules and where someone is granted asylum refugee status, family reunion can follow straight away. Where someone is granted exceptional leave to remain, there is a four-year waiting period. If I were to dwell on that point, no doubt you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

For the accuracy of the record, will the Minister confirm what he told me in his letter that I received today: that, to date, only 235 ex-detainees and only 387 dependants have been received in the United Kingdom? We are a very long way from the figure of 4,000 announced by the former Home Secretary last November.

Order. I have allowed a certain latitude, but I am not prepared to allow any more. The Minister, just like any other hon. Member, must now Consider the amendments.

I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the advice offered by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in Committee and subsequently in the discussions that he and I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) about a children's advisory panel. I know of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm about the subject, and I am grateful for his good wishes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

However, perhaps the only difference on the matter between the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and me is whether there should be statutory responsibility for the panel. For the reasons that I made as clear as possible, it would be confusing to have statutory responsibility, because there are already clear-cut statutory responsibilities laid on local authority social services departments in that area.

The practical administrative measure which will deliver precisely the same service as the friend and adviser which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has advocated throughout, and which Lord Brightman has advocated, will be delivered by the arrangements which are now in place.

If there is a clear statutory responsibility on local authority social services departments in respect of unaccompanied children, what is the Minister's Department prepared to do to reimburse them for the considerable costs of looking after deeply traumatised children for many years? Such children require a great deal of support, help and counselling.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I alluded to that earlier. Precisely how the extra funds announced by the Home Secretary on 3 February will be distributed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) volunteered that there were party political considerations afoot. I fear that he has not had an opportunity to read our debates in Committee, where he will have learnt of administrative measures designed to improve the service that is being offered. That is of fundamental importance.

I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Brent, South spoke briefly on Second Reading and asked about legal aid and funding for such advice. He also asked about the arrangements to which I referred earlier. He was concerned for the way in which the Refugee Council and others might operate.

As I said earlier, that is a matter for the Refugee Council which will organise and administer the scheme itself. It has specific Home Office funding for that purpose. The Refugee Council is well placed to work with other voluntary organisations which are active in the area. However, it will be for the Refugee Council to decide whom to consult and when.

Will the Minister confirm that, although the Refugee Council has agreed to carry out that work, its stated preference was for a statutory agency?

Mr. Dubs of the Refugee Council has made that point clear. As the House will be aware, I disagree with that point of view. I am sure that we will find that the Refugee Council will go to work with a will and will make the new panel of advisors work very well. We will be discussing with the Department of Health how best to draw the attention of local authorities to the new arrangements—probably through an addition to the new guidance that I mentioned earlier, which is in preparation.

The hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) outlined a number of case histories and described arrangements that were in place in other countries. I think that their suspicions are overdone. We are dealing with the treatment of child asylum seekers. This is not a matter of asylum procedures as such. It relates to the treatment of those children. I am absolutely confident that the new administrative measures in place—the new funding for the scheme that will be run by the Refugee Council—will serve the cause of child asylum seekers in this country suitably and well.

For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

The amendments to clause 3(2) are intended to make it clear that a child under 16 should be fingerprinted only in the presence of a person who is independent of the immigration authorities or the police and whose role it is to look after the interests of the child. The amendments provide for that individual to be the child's parent or guardian or a person who, for the time being, takes responsibility for that child. That would cover, for example, a local authority social worker, the child's legal representative, a relation other than a parent or guardian or a worker with a voluntary agency. The amendments make it clear that that person cannot be an immigration officer, another member of the Home Office or a police or prison officer.

I believe that the amendments meet the principal concern expressed in Committee in both Houses that the adult present should be seen to be independent of the authorities and responsible for looking after the child's interests.

The clause that provides for the fingerprinting of asylum seekers is one of the most objectionable in what Opposition Members consider to be a squalid Bill. It remains squalid despite the amendments that have been made in another place. It was of some consolation, but not much, that the clause was amended in two respects during its consideration in another place.

I was interested to note the clarification that the Minister offered about who might act as the adviser or friend to children who are asylum seekers. Although the Opposition welcome that clarification and the modest improvements that the amendments have made to the Bill, we do so not in the belief that they make the Bill acceptable, but that they represent the fulfilment of the commitments argued for and given by the Minister in Committee. For that reason, we will not oppose the amendments, but that should not be taken as signifying that we are satisfied with the content of the clause. That is far from the truth.

Throughout the Bill's progress, the Opposition's objections have centred on the fact that the very act of being fingerprinted criminalises asylum seekers. We have consistently argued in Committee, and in the House today, against that practice.

It is a long-established principle, certainly in Britain, that the only people who can be required to have their fingerprints taken are those who have been charged with a criminal offence. When people hear that someone is to be fingerprinted, it is certainly their perception that that person has committed a criminal offence. The fingerprinting of asylum seekers is objectionable not only for adults, but for children. That is why we have consistently argued strongly for the protection that is offered under the amendments.

I am not aware that even the Government have suggested that an application for asylum should be regarded as a criminal offence. The much maligned—and rightly so—hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) would be happy to argue for that, however, should the Government decide to change their policy.

I am not seeking to make cheap points about the recent comments of that rather dishonourable Member. At this stage, he is an easy target, but we are entitled to know where he is today. Why has he failed to attend this debate so that he can discuss an issue that is, apparently, of great importance to him? If the matter is really so important to the hon. Gentleman, why is he not present? We must question his motives—he must have made the speech for his own gain. I tend to be a regular participant in such debates and I have not seen the hon. Gentleman participating, which makes his remarks all the more reprehensible.

6 pm

In Committee, my hon. Friends and I failed to convince the Under-Secretary of my objections to criminalising those who are fingerprinted, including children. Legislation already exists—sections 27 and 61 of the Police -and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971—to deal with cases in which it is believed that an asylum seeker may have committed a criminal offence. I am aware that we have covered that ground before, but it is important because all the arguments that we have advanced about the effect on adults of compulsory fingerprinting are multiplied several times in respect of children.

To fingerprint all asylum seekers, including children, makes an assumption of guilt. It assumes that everyone arrives at our shores with an ulterior motive—travelling under an alias, intent on making a bogus application and fraudulently claiming benefit. The underlying assumption is that no one is to be trusted and that, until they can prove their innocence, all asylum seekers are to be assumed guilty, at least in theory. Such a policy stands on its head what we have come to know as British justice—that one is innocent until proved guilty.

The Government have singularly failed to establish a convincing case for the need for blanket fingerprinting. We threw numbers at them in Committee and the Under-Secretary gave me some illuminating figures. He said that the total number of cases being investigated then —November last year—was 1,600; 11 had led to convictions, 16 were being prosecuted and 170 suspected multi-applicants had been served with illegal entry papers. Those figures are small, and become comparatively smaller when placed against the total number of 24,000 asylum applications received in this country last year. The Government cannot use the scale of the problem to substantiate their argument for the need for blanket fingerprinting. If that is true in general, it is even more valid in terms of children.

Members of the Committee were given much information by a number of organisations which serviced us effectively. One of the most illuminating pieces of information came from the Children's Society. It recently produced a document called "Nowhere to Go", which quotes from interviews with families from Somalia and Eritrea who have sought asylum in this country. I shall read out one moving comment made by the asylum seekers. I shall quote verbatim, which will account for the grammar.

In a description of the experience of being fingerprinted on arrival and its effects, the interviewees said:

"This is very disgraceful. Back home if you are a criminal then you put your fingerprint. But asylum seekers when we put our fingerprints on the paper and explain to the children we are putting the fingerprint. After some time when there is a picture on the television it is going to give the impression to the children…'My Mum she is wrong or my family are wrong. What did they do? It is something wrong'. So it's going to affect in terms of the mentality of the children. Because it shows on the television that if you do a crime you put your fingerprint and the children because of lack of knowledge of asylum seekers, they will think 'My father or my mum they are thieves'."

Those are the comments of people who have arrived in this country within the past year. I could give many more examples, but I do not have time to do so. The example that I have given underlines the way in which the people involved feel criminalised. Whether or not the Under-Secretary and his colleagues believe that the policy has a criminalising effect, those who are subjected to it, including children, believe that it does.

The way that fingerprinting affects children is the most serious aspect of the issue. It is a step further than the previous Bill on asylum was prepared to go, and it is certainly a step too far. In Committee, we charged the Under-Secretary with advocating a policy that would place the Government and the country in contravention of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Article 37(a) states that no child shall be subjected to

"cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

If children are subjected to forced fingerprinting when they have just arrived in a strange country, probably do not speak the language and have suffered the traumas of which we heard in detail earlier, that certainly amounts to degrading treatment. It might also be termed cruel and/or inhuman treatment depending on the state in which the child arrived in Britain—that would be determined according to the individual circumstances. The policy would contravene that convention, to which the Government, on behalf of the people of this country, are a signatory. They have a duty to uphold all its articles.

The right of a child to be accompanied while being fingerprinted is important, which is why we argued for it. But why should that provision be limited to children under 16? The answer is not clear, particularly as elsewhere, such as in clause 5(5)(a), the Bill refers to children as those under 18. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain why 16 should be the age to apply to fingerprinting but 18 should be the age in relation to housing and other matters. It is not clear why that anomaly exists—it may he a drafting error, or there may be specific reasons. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will enlighten us.

It is not clear why any limits are set. In Committee, the Under-Secretary argued and, in another place, Earl Ferrers said on behalf of the Government that one reason why they were not prepared to accept any Opposition amendments about setting an age limit of 16, 14, 12, 10 or whatever was that one could never be sure of a child's age. If that is so—I do not accept that it is—why set an age limit of 16 for fingerprinting and an age limit of 18 for housing and other matters? If there are insuperable difficulties in ascertaining a person's age, we should be consistent and not set an age limit. I do not believe that it is impossible to ascertain someone's age, but my hon. Friends and I believe that fingerprinting people under the age of 18 is inappropriate and could be regarded as degrading and inhumane.

Section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 states that a child under 10 cannot be presumed guilty of any offence, so no proceedings can be brought. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act lays down rules for fingerprinting children. Therefore, there are double standards on both counts—children under 10 cannot be charged with any criminal offence, yet, under the fingerprinting provisions, they are to be treated as if they were criminals. There are certain rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and different ones in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

Double standards are always unacceptable. To introduce double standards—one for British citizens and one for citizens of other countries—is entirely unacceptable and inimical to the legislation that we should pass. The distinction is unacceptable under any circumstances and one of which the Government should be ashamed. Were it possible to shame or embarrass the Government into changing direction, that would have happened long ago, in respect of other legislation, not just the Bill.

I feel that the efforts that I and others of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) have made during the Bill's passage have highlighted to the Government the Bill's shortcomings and its pernicious nature. Its insidious denial of human rights and its inevitable criminalising effect on adults and children are not offset by the inclusion of the amendments.

The Bill has been opposed root and branch from start to finish. It has consistently been seen by Opposition Members as seeking simply to restrict the number of people coming into this country without any understanding of the position in which they find themselves. We have opposed it, and it does the Government no credit. Our opposition to the Bill as a whole is in no way reduced by the fact that we welcome the amendments.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) has eloquently described the background to the amendments. I simply wish to make it clear on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we regard the Government's modest concession—that children's fingerprints should be compulsorily taken only in the presence of their parents, guardians or those responsible for them when they are interviewed by immigration officials—as an improvement. It is certainly unsatisfactory that it has taken so long to extract such a modest improvement to the Bill from the Government. I greatly regretted the fact that the Minister earlier appeared, rather insensitively, to regard compulsory fingerprinting of children as no more horrifying than when they are fingerprinted in a pleasure park at their own instigation. The two are quite different, as I am sure he will, on reflection, agree.

This is a modestly humanising measure. The amendments reflect the fallback position that we advocated in Committee. Many of us felt that it was wrong to fingerprint children under a certain age; but, as the Government are determined to persist, I believe that the amendments will help to remove some of the more frightening aspects of this physically intrusive compulsory fingerprinting of children.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 7, Lords amendment No. 8 and amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 15.

This group of amendments extends the new avenue of appeal created by clause 9 from asylum cases only to all final determinations by the immigration appeal tribunal. That should be generally welcomed. It means that the opportunities to seek leave to appeal on a point of law to the relevant court will be available in both asylum and other immigration cases. I should perhaps confirm that nothing in the clause removes the availability of judicial review.

It may be helpful if I briefly explain the effect of the various amendments. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 amend subsection (1), which creates the new avenue of appeal and removes the limitation to appeals in asylum cases. Amendment No. 8 specifies the appropriate court to deal with these cases. If the appeal was originally heard by an adjudicator in Scotland, the appropriate appeal court will be the Court of Session. In all other cases it will he the Court of Appeal.

Amendment No. 9 amends the 1971 Act so as to provide that an appeal shall continue to be treated as pending while an appeal may be or is being brought under this new provision. That will protect appellants from being required to leave the United Kingdom during that stage of the process.

As for amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 8, the appeal system that the Bill provides for asylum seekers and the appeal system which already exists under the 1971 Act for other immigration appeals already provide a two-stage appeal—first, to an adjudicator, then to the tribunal. The Bill adds a further right of appeal, with leave on a point of law, to the Court of Appeal. Lords amendment No. 8 extends that to all immigration appeals, not just asylum cases.

Amendment (a) seeks to add one more layer to the process, by having the appeal from the determination of the tribunal go to the High Court. Cases that involve important points of law would no doubt go from there to the Court of Appeal, so we would have a four-tier system of appeals. The aim of the Bill is to provide an effective way of resolving disputed points of law arising from immigration and asylum appeals without needing to resort to judicial review. It is not a mechanism for drawing out the appeals process as long as possible. The view of the Lord Chancellor is that it is better to allow the appeal to go direct to the Court of Appeal and so to keep delays to a minimum.

There is nothing new in providing an avenue of appeal direct from a tribunal to the Court of Appeal. In general, when a tribunal hears appeals from another body, as the immigration appeal tribunal does, the avenue of appeal is to the Court of Appeal. Examples of such tribunals are the social security commissioners, the employment appeal tribunal and the lands tribunal. An appeal usually lies to the High Court when the tribunal takes decisions at first instance.

Amendment (b) seems to be based on the belief that the purpose of providing the new avenue of appeal is to deprive people of the chance of judicial review; not so. It is true that until now the only way of challenging a decision of the tribunal has been by way of judicial review and that it will now be open to dissatisfied appellants to seek to challenge disputed points of law by the more appropriate remedy of an application for leave to appeal to the relevant court.

To the extent that that remedy is available, the use of judicial review to challenge tribunal determinations is likely to decrease; but when a person seeks judicial review, it is entirely up to the judges to decide whether there is an issue that comes within their jurisdiction or merits leave to move for judicial review. Nothing in the Bill removes the availability of judicial review, nor is that the Government's intention.

Lords amendment No. 15 is an amendment to the long title of the Bill designed to reflect the amendments that have been made during the passage of the Bill. In its original form the long title states that the Bill restricts certain rights of appeal under the 1971 Act. We are now also extending the new avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal to all determinations by the tribunal under the 1971 Act, and the new wording more accurately reflects the contents of the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for telling us something about the amendments, and especially about judicial review. These amendments were slipped into the Bill late and with virtually no debate in another place. We therefore did not have the benefit of a detailed explanation.

Our fear is that the amendments are more far-reaching and fundamental than their description in the other place would suggest—they were described as simply an extension of the right of appeal. Our fear remains that the facility of judicial review may in practice be limited by the amendments—in short, that there is a hidden agenda.

When the Bill left the Commons it included an appeal direct to the Court of Appeal in special ajudicator cases —that is to say, cases involving asylum. All other matters were still subject to review and appeal by way of judicial review. We were not happy with the Bill when it left here because we thought that the Court of Appeal pitched the process at the wrong level: it made appeals more extensive and complicated and it meant that cases were sent to a court that is already overworked and short of judges.

In another place and without debate, the arrangement intended for asylum cases was extended to cover all appeals, involving business people, wives, dependants, students and so on. The amendment, which look innocuous enough, may disguise a hidden agenda and reduce the possibilities of judicial review.

The divisional court applies two principles, among others, when it considers giving leave for judicial review. The first concerns whether an application is made within three months of the decision in question. Secondly, the divisional court tends to consider whether there is an existing right of appeal. It tends to refuse leave for judicial review when another avenue is open to someone—for instance, when a case comes before an adjudicator and there is a possibility of appealing to the immigration appeal tribunal, or when an immigration officer has made a decision and there is an appeal to an adjudicator.

In such cases, the divisional court tends to say that the matter is not appropriate for judicial review because other avenues are open. Even if the Government do not intend it, we are concerned that the effect of the amendments may be to cut out these avenues. Hence, to deal with a question of administrative law or impropriety, someone will have to canvass the issues before an adjudicator or the immigration appeal tribunal, but will be able to question them only when they get to the Court of Appeal

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have one question for the Minister which I shall preface with a preamble. The Bill incorporates the United Nations convention on the status of refugees, and the Government are a signatory to the European convention on human rights. In a new development, the European convention is expressly recited and adhered to in the Maastricht treaty, which the Government shortly propose to sign. My question is important whether appeals go to the Court of Appeal or to judicial review. Do the Government intend our courts to take direct cognisance of the European convention on human rights in deciding the validity of immigration rules, immigration appeal rules and the procedures before immigration appeal authorities?

Secondly, are the Government prepared to have ministerial decisions tested against the human rights criteria? The Government signed the human rights convention and are about to sign another treaty which expressly incorporates the European convention on human rights. Are they prepared to allow our domestic courts, whether the Court of Appeal or a judicial review body, to test what Ministers do and to test immigration rules and appeal rules against those criteria? If they are prepared to do that, how can the convention be applied if, in practice, judicial review is excluded because of the other appeal rights?

If the Minister is absolutely satisfied that there will be no interference whatever in the capacity to opt for judicial review at any stage of the proceedings, I shall be happy to agree to the amendments. However, if there is any risk in practice, whether or not it is a matter of law, or judicial review being curtailed, we would feel unhappy about the amendments.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hidden agenda. The fact that the European convention on human rights is mentioned in the Maastricht treaty will have no relevance to decisions by British courts on the matters that the hon. Gentleman outlined.

I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out from "appoint" to "monitor" in line 3 and insert,

"the Commission for Racial Equality (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission")".

With this it will be convenient also to discuss amendments (b) to (g) to the Lords amendment, plus Government amendment (j) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendment No. 11.

The Conservatives are in a terrible mess and that would normally give some pleasure to the Opposition. However, when the Conservatives make a mess they are not the people who suffer, but people outside. When they are incompetent on the economy, my constituents lose jobs or businesses, and when the Government stupidly introduce a daft experiment to pay pensions into bank accounts, it is pensioners who become isolated while postmasters go bust.

When the Home Secretary needed to impress his Back Benchers, he bolted an anti-immigration clause on to what is essentially an asylum Bill. The relatives and friends of black and Asian British people will thus find that, virtually alone in our legal system, they will be denied the right to appeal against the wrongful denial of a visitor's visa. Last year, 3,845 such wrongful decisions were overturned because people had the right to appeal. That is the only reason for those decisions being changed. It was not because of any magnanimity by the Minister or the Home Secretary. The right of appeal has been abolished, and if those 3,845 people are wrongfully denied right of access to this country, they will have no redress. By abolishing the right of appeal the Government are acquiescing to the continuation of wrongful decisions.

The Government need to play to several audiences and the amendments and proceedings in the Lords and elsewhere are an elaborate pantomime to try to convince the ethnic minority British that the proposals to abolish the right of appeal will not hurt them. A package of transparent concessions was offered in Committee, but it was laughed out of court. It was tragic and almost amusing to watch the Minister as he pretended to be dragged into making concessions to his Back Benchers, most of whom spent their time in Committee studying their correspondence and other papers. Suddenly they sprang to life to gain marvellous concessions which nobody believes have any substance.

Having failed to carry the day with those, the Government are now offering monitoring in place of a right of appeal. But not each case or each refusal of a visa will be monitored, nor can monitoring be initiated by someone who has been denied a visa. A minute and random sample will be monitored, the exercise will be unknown to the applicant and there will be no possible redress for errors. I hope that no one in any minority community in Great Britain will be gullible enough to be bought off by such flimsy and obvious manoeuvring. When the Tory begging bowl is passed around in the Asian business community, I hope that it will be greeted with the question, "How did you vote about the right of appeal being abolished for visitors?"

The Government have attempted to wangle their way out of the problem by promoting what they would term a friendly amendment in the Lords. It is worth considering why the amendment was proposed. The Government argued that there is an overwhelming need to end the appeal system, which we have had for 21 years and under which people have applied for visitor or student visas. In Committee, the Minister claimed that clause 12, which abolishes the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance as visitors, students intending to study for less than six months, proposed students and their dependants, is necessary to prevent the immigration appeal system from getting clogged up and thus preventing genuine appeal cases from being heard. The Opposition have never accepted that argument and its policy implications.

6.30 pm

Lords amendment No. 10 proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint an individual to oversee and review

"in such a manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is … no right of appeal".

Furthermore, the appointed person

"shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."

I have a number of criticisms of the role, responsibilities and powers of the appointed person. The proposal is a weak attempt by the Government to cover up the injustice that they will serve on many people in the United Kingdom and their relatives abroad by abolishing the right of appeal.

My hon. Friend may or may not know that for some time I represented appellants almost on a daily basis. I believe that I was the person involved in the very first appeal, which was heard in July 1970, so our system has been in existence for almost 23 years.

What is wrong is not merely that the right of appeal is being abolished. As my hon. Friend said, that right allowed the tribunal to find that the decisions taken by adjudicators in a number of cases were wrong. Is he aware that, when the entry clearance officer is deciding whether to accept or reject an application, he will bear in mind the fact that he will have to justify the decision if an appeal is lodged? He will have to write an explanatory statement, which will go before an adjudicator in the event of an appeal.

Once the right of appeal is removed, the entry clearance officer will have no fear of what may happen as a result of his decision, because it will not be possible to challenge his decision in any meaningful way.

My hon. Friend brings all his experience to bear in pinpointing that important matter. The problem is not merely that decisions in a large number of applications have been rejected and overturned on appeal, but that the checking mechanism of the appeal system, which provides a stimulus to entry clearance officers to get the decision right in the first place, will be removed. The figures on that do not appear in any statistics, because that threat of appeal if people get the decision wrong exists only as an internal policing role.

Of the 13,882 people who appealed on refusal of entry clearance abroad, 3,845 had their appeals allowed. It is outrageous that the Government are prepared to see that those who are initially wrongfully refused entry to the United Kingdom can be left with no recourse to any further consideration of their cases. The Government's proposal of a monitor is inadequate for the appeals procedure. However, we are aware that the monitoring process will be steamrollered through in the normal manner this evening, so it is incumbent on us to make efforts to strengthen the monitoring process, as well as criticising the reason why we need that process—the abolition of the right of appeal.

Our amendments set out proposals to give teeth to the monitor. Initially, they are aimed at ensuring greater independence for the monitor from the Secretary of State. To start with, how independent can a monitor be if he is appointed by the Secretary of State? Our amendment would ensure that the monitor is appointed by the Commission for Racial Equality. The appointee would then have a truly independent role and he would not have his role of independent scrutineer determined by the Secretary of State.

The CRE appointee would determine which cases he investigated and would have access to the files necessary for a proper investigation of refused cases. We believe that the CRE would be the appropriate organisation to appoint the monitor and such an arrangement would ensure that the body that has experience in monitoring the actions of immigration authorities would be able to oversee the workings of the entry clearance system. Its record, and the work that it has done, speak for themselves. It would bring an element of independence to the process, thereby ensuring that all communities could have faith that the process was working on an impartial basis.

That raises the question of adequate resources. The monitor that the CRE chooses must have a properly staffed and resourced office. It is not clear whether the Secretary of State's appointee will have the adequate secretarial or administrative back-up that a monitor must have if he is to be effective. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he will have that.

The number of cases that a one-man or one-woman operation could monitor would be minuscule. With one person attempting to dip into the various files and reviews, only a tiny number of cases would be reviewed. Even with this unambitious proposal of monitoring, we should set a target of at least 10 per cent. of refusals being examined by the monitor and his staff. Anything less would render the exercise even more transparently an exercise in camouflage of the abolition of the right of appeal than it is already.

In carrying out his responsibilities, the monitor should, if necessary, be allowed to call witnesses before him to enable him to determine the reasons for refusal of entry clearances. He should have the power to refer any such refusal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. If he is to be effective, it is essential that the monitor is able to contact those who are refused as individuals and get full access to the notes and files.

The Minister has promised that people will be sent a more detailed refusal letter, but it is not quite clear how detailed that refusal letter will be. There may be notes of an interview between the entry clearance officer and the refused visitor, as referrred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Those notes will be set out from the entry clearance officer's point of view, and it seems unlikely that any documents presented to him will be kept. There will be no explanatory statement setting out his thought processes and, more importantly, nothing from the visitor's point of view.

In appeals that succeed, the visitor can usually explain misunderstandings or misinterpretations in the first interview or even give a more full explanation than that recorded by the entry clearance officer. However, as the Bill stands, that information will not be available to the monitor, so his decision will be given after only a cursory examination of some of the papers. We could not readily accept that. Even if, on the information available, the monitor believes that a decision is wrong, there will be no redress for the individual visitor. He will not even know that his case has been reviewed and he will not be informed of the outcome or told that entry clearance will be granted in future. Because he will not know about any review, he cannot make any representations.

If, magically, on that brief random sample the monitor decides that injustice has been done, there will be no way of redressing it. We are not talking about an odd problem or two—last year almost 4,000 individuals won their appeals. This year, people will not even know whether their cases are being reviewed. The Government's proposals will simply perpetuate injustices unless adequate information and access are provided. Indeed, the very fact that an inadequate monitoring system exists may make the position worse. The courts may feel that due process has been gone through, which will undermine the concept of judicial review. The monitor's report, especially if it is favourable, could be used to support any suggestion that decisions are generally fair. That will make it even harder for individual visitors to contest unjust refusals.

It is worth repeating that currently 20 per cent. of refusals are found to be in error on appeal. I make no apology for repeating the analogy that I used some time ago on Second Reading—imagine what would happen if there was a 20 per cent. error rate in other areas of the civil service, perhaps in the income tax returns of hon. Members or their constituents, or perhaps in social security claims. It would be absolutely intolerable.

The very fact that the scale of the problem has been highlighted is due to the appeals system. People can appeal, and we can find out what mistakes have been made. That will no longer be available and the monitor will not be able to overturn even the most blatantly wrong decisions. I hope that the House agrees that that is neither acceptable nor just.

Our amendments would ensure that the monitor reports to the House not once a year, as the Government propose, but monthly. That may appear to be a heavy burden, but as the monitor will have very few powers the least that we should do is to ensure that he regularly alerts the House to the high number of applications being wrongfully refused. Hon. Members can then debate the issue in the House. Of course, this is not really the place where appeals against wrongful refusal should be heard, but if it is all that is available, hon. Members should have the necessary information provided monthly. I repeat that we are talking not about the odd case, but about at least 4,000 cases a year. There would certainly be enough cases to keep hon. Members chewing over the monitor's report each month. We need to scrutinise the system as thoroughly as possible.

The amendments would broaden the scope of the monitor's investigations, which is crucial to improving his proposed role. He should investigate refusals of entry and refusals of entry clearance. We want the monitor to review and investigate the rejection of both and the latter is included in Lord's amendment No. 10. Refusals of leave to enter at airports and ports, or any refusals of students or prospective students, would not then be excluded, as they currently are, from the monitor's remit.

We are conscious of the need to give the monitor teeth. We have realised for some time that the Government's intention behind this proposal is merely to give some respectability to the withdrawal of the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance. We give the right of appeal to a common murderer, but not to a mother seeking to enter this country to be present at, for example, a family funeral, christening or other religious ceremony. In the Government's view, they are not worthy of retaining the right of appeal.

6.45 pm

The plan to conceal the abolition of the right of appeal has not worked. I call upon the Government to accept the amendments and give the monitor some genuine powers and a genuine role. If the Government do not do that, they stand accused and condemned of just carrying out a public relations exercise to limit the political damage that they have inflicted not just on themselves, but on many of our innocent fellow citizens, by abolishing the right of appeal.

I must inform the House that amendment No. 10 involves privilege.

Over the years, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with individual cases of immigration law and refusals of entry clearance. It takes up an incredible amount of the time of any hon. Member representing a constituency, as I do, which has people from all parts of the world. I shall not go into great detail, but I can tell the House of the horror and misery caused to those families who cannot be reunited because of the bureaucracy of our immigration rules.

It is fundamentally wrong that our immigration laws should be the opposite of all other presumptions of law. The presumption of guilt is on the individual, there is a lack of right of appeal, a lack of natural justice in dealing with the case and the Secretary of State is judge, jury gaoler, executioner and deportation officer. He has total power over the lives of a large number of people.

The history of the clause with which we are dealing lies in the way that good and expert immigration lawyers have, over the years, consistently challenged the nonsense of the operation of existing immigration law. They have had a number of successful judicial review cases and have also taken cases to the European Court. The Government are attempting to raise the threshold for judicial review in an attempt to evade any accountability for the decisions made by entry clearance officers. Although the Lords amendments do not go anything like as far as I would wish, at least they provide the basis for monitoring and examining what is happening. That has to be a slight improvement on what the Government initially wanted.

We must deal with a number of issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those seeking entry clearance currently have a right of appeal if the decision goes against them. The appeal is heard and a decision made, albeit often in unfortunate circumstances because frequently those people have already been removed from this country and have lost their ability to return. I understand that in one year, one third of all the cases appealed are successful—yet the Secretary of State wants to remove that right of appeal.

The proceedings in Committee were farcical. It was obvious that Afro-Caribbean and Asian families resident in this country were concerned and angry at the prospect of visitors being unable to come here for happy family events such as birthdays, weddings or the birth of a child, or for sad family events such as funerals. They were alarmed by the prospects of the removal of the right of appeal and the unfettered power that that would give to officers in British missions overseas.

In an attempt to get out of that mess, the Secretary of State contacted the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who willingly went along with the nonsense of allowing a second application rather than a proper right of appeal. Presumably the hon. Gentleman presented that as some kind of victory and indication of his parliamentary skills, but the opposite is true. It made an appalling situation even worse. It was a travesty of justice in the first place, and it makes a total mockery of sense of justice to allow a second bite of the cherry if one can afford to pay for it. It is time that was made clear and put on the record.

As to the right of those from Somalia to enter the country at this time, I have been contacted by solicitors representing a number of Somali citizens who seek family reunion. As the Minister knows, if a family gains full asylum status in this country, family reunion is automatic. Increasingly, the Department is both to grant asylum to anyone. I am not sure of the process through which one must go to persuade the Home Office that one is worthy of asylum.

Instead, the Home Office grants the lesser right of exceptional leave to remain, which means a four-year delay until such time as the application for family reunion can be considered. That is a long time in the life of a child, and is totally unjustified and unfair if the Minister knows all along that the Home Office will have to grant entry to the rest of the family at some time, so that it can be reunited.

Persons who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the country must pay the usual visa fees, which can be as much as £60 per person. Those fees are waived in respect of relatives of refugees but not of those given exceptional leave to enter. I do not understand why those persons must pay when they are granted the right of residence in this country for virtually the same reasons as relatives of refugees.

It is time that the Government understood the deep anguish felt by many in this country at the way in which their relatives and friends are treated when they merely try to visit. In Committee, we warned of the implications—of the unpleasantness, and of the total lack of accountability in respect of the work done by entry clearance officers in British missions abroad.

The basic tenet of Government in a democratic society is that official decisions can be challenged at some stage. The only way that an individual can now challenge the decisions of individual immigration officers at British missions abroad or in this country is to contact a Member of Parliament. That Member of Parliament can contact a Minister, and if he does not give a satisfactory answer, the Member of Parliament can try to raise the matter in the House. That is not satisfactory, and there ought to be normal, basic rights of appeal—as there are in every other area of life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is attempting to improve proposals that he admits are not anyway very satisfactory. The suggestion is that just one individual will serve as a monitor. As just one constituency Member of Parliament, I cannot monitor in detail all the problems that are brought to me—and I am sure that I speak for other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard. How on earth will one individual be able adequately to monitor the situation on behalf of the Government?

The Minister has the largest private office in the whole of Whitehall, and the biggest budget. He has also the largest staff and the biggest volume of individual casework. That is because immigration law has been concocted in such a curious way. We need in its place real rights of appeal, real rights of accountability, and real rights for those who seek family reunion or who want legitimately to join relatives in this country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North rightly pointed out, there is need also for an independent basis for the monitor. I am not happy with the idea of the Secretary of State appointing a monitor to monitor himself. I can imagine who the Secretary of State might appoint to sit at the desk in the corner of his office, whom he can tell how to monitor the work. Monthly, not annual, reports are needed, as is some form of appeal other than an appeal to the very same Secretary of State who made the original decision or on whose behalf the decision was made.

The issue will not go away. Every few years, the Government try some new means of removing the rights of those who want to join their families, friends and relatives in this country. We have seen various changes to immigration rules, and the curtailment of the rights of Members of Parliament and of access to judicial review and the European Court. There is now to be a lack of any form of appeal against decisions. When a totally erroneous and ludicrous decision is made, I am sure that a way will be found to have the case made the subject of judicial review—and then we shall be back on the merry-go-round. It is time to review the issue in the light of justice, equality and fair play, rather than make those affected suffer bureaucratic horrors and misery.

The losers in that bureaucratic merry-go-round are the families separated by thousands of miles of sea and mountains of paperwork, and the growing children who are unable to remain with their parents, as they should rightfully do—to live happily and harmoniously. They cannot do so because of the way in which immigration law operates.

I share he views so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) but take them further. My hon. Friend said that the Government will find some way to get around ludicrous decisions, but that will not be possible. Where a ludicrous decision is made, the sufferer will be returned to wherever he or she came from, and then it will be too late to do anything. That is the basic problem of monitoring as opposed to the right of appeal.

The abolition of that right is a monstrous act for a decent country to perform. I declare a certain personal interest, in that all four of my grandparents came to this country at the end of the last century to seek asylum—whether by that term or otherwise—from the vicious miseries then imposed on Jewish people by the Tsar and his armies. As I listened to the debate, I wondered whether my grandparents would even have gained entry to this country on the terms now proposed.

If they had not done so because some official had exercised his or her power, my grandparents would have boarded another ship; if they had the money to do so—or would have been put on another ship. Neither my revered father or I would have had the proud privilege of serving the House, whether as a Member of Parliament or as an official, or in any other capacity.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we are debating the abolition of appeal against the refusal of visit visas and mandatory refusals of entry clearance. That has nothing to do with asylum applications or with appeals against the refusal of settlement applications.

The whole system of appeals should apply to everyone. My constituents complain that a relative is not allowed entry to attend a funeral—

Order. What the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is one thing but, as a lawyer, he will appreciate that the amendments are fairly tightly drawn. The hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks should remain within the bounds of the Lords amendments under consideration.

Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was only responding to the Minister's intervention. I will direct my remarks with pleasure at clause 10, point by point—and then there can be no allegation that I am straying one inch from the path of legal propriety. Amendment No. 10 to clause 10 states:

"The Secretary of State shall appoint a person".

Why should the Secretary of State appoint the monitor? Why should the individual who is to be monitored decide who is to do the monitoring? Even with our system of appointment to Select Committees, one of which I am privileged to chair, it is not the relevant Department or Minister being monitored that appoints the members of that Committee but the Whips. They may make mistakes —for example, no woman serves on the Employment Committee. However, at least the members of Select Committees cannot be accused of being appointed by the Minister.

The Secretary of State is to appoint "a person"—one person to monitor thousands of applications. That will provide thousands of opportunities to do people harm and injustice. That person will not be "an officer of his". What good news. Thank heaven for small mercies. At least the Home Office will not be landed with a responsibility that I am sure its officials would not welcome.

7 pm

The person appointed will monitor refusals not in accordance with the interests of natural justice, but

"in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine"

The Secretary of State will not only appoint the monitor, but decide the way in which that monitor will do his duty. What a travesty. The person to be put on trial will appoint the judge; there will be no jury; and the same person will decide the way in which the tribunal is to proceed. This is not justice, but a cover-up—an attempt to make people think that justice will be available. It is not a way of ensuring that those who come to this country have rights; it constitutes an assurance that no such rights will exist.

The Lords amendment states:

"The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance".

Following such a refusal, the applicant must return to his own country, because he will have no right of appeal. The refusal will then be monitored.

That is right.

But how is the monitoring to be carried out? I wonder whether the Minister has ever stood beside such people and watched the way in which they work. Of course, there are good ones and bad ones.

Yes.

No doubt the Minister has observed such people since taking his present post. Of course, they would not have known who he was; they would have carried out their work in the ordinary way, because the Minister would have appeared incognito.

Can the Minister imagine what it would be like to be a relative of one of my constituents, coming over from India to attend a wedding, and to be told, "Goodbye—out you go. One day, someone will monitor the refusal of your application, and make a report a year later. Her Majesty's Government will consider the report—in such manner as they will determine—and then decide how to deal with it. Eventually, it will be laid before the House." Of course, the Government will have a big enough majority to ram through anything they like, just as they will be able to ram through this rubbish tonight—unless there are enough by-elections to change things: that cannot happen soon enough for me.

Refusals will be monitored only when there is no right of appeal,

"and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions".

What does that actually mean? The report need not be made at the end of the year; it can be made six months later, by which time everyone who has been refused entry and has gone home will probably be dead. As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead: certainly, the amendment is a dead measure which will breathe no life into this corpse of a Bill.

My hon. and learned Friend is being characteristically generous—even to the Government—in assuming that each refusal will be monitored. Unfortunately, that will not happen; a random selection will be made. Only a handful will be examined, and those whose cases are monitored will be extremely lucky. Who knows what will happen then? No action need arise.

If I was trying to be generous, I covered it up as best I could. I certainly was not suggesting that every case would be considered. That cannot happen: cases will be monitored

"in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine".

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has pointed out, the manner in which they are monitored will depend on the staff allotted to the one person who is to act as supreme monitor of the public school machinery that is being installed to determine who is allowed into the country.

What will happen to the report? The Secretary of State

"shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."

How wonderful. But when will that happen, and what can the House do if it does not like the report? What will happen to those who are sent home, and what will happen to their families? What misery will be caused? How many people who should have been allowed in will be excluded, and what hardship will be imposed by a bad system, a bad Bill and a clause that Opposition Members have tried to improve? No doubt even our modest amendments will be rejected.

I know that the Minister does his best to be kind in individual cases. I urge him to recognise the vast unkindness that clause 10 and the Lords amendment will do, and how little the monitor will be able to do to put matters right.

I spoke about this matter on Second Reading. I share the concern of families whose connections are refused entry to attend important functions which any normal family would expect to be fully attended. When travelling in different parts of the world, I have talked to entry clearance officers; I genuinely believe that many try to do as fair a job as possible, given the circumstances in which they operate. In some countries—in Thailand, for example, and on the Indian subcontinent—they experience real difficulties.

On Second Reading, I suggested that offence is caused to those who issue invitations in this country, and that it might be worth while to consider sponsors and their supporters. In my constituency, the cases that cause the gravest offence involve people who have made a considerable effort to invite visitors—parents, perhaps—and to fill in forms saying that no claim for social security will be made. They may have gone to further trouble by coming to my surgeries and asking me to countersign such forms.

Many such people are stalwarts in their local communities, and are constantly praised at various functions for being law-abiding and contributing so much to society. I sincerely believe that that is the case. When their relatives are refused entry, the impression is given that they are colluding with someone who is seeking to break the law, which gives enormous offence.

Many appeals are submitted after the wedding, or whatever, has taken place: the appellant realises that, by the time the appeal is heard, it will be pointless, but wishes to justify the original invitation. Appellants want to clear their names, and to make it clear that the invitation was genuine and that they would not collude with any illegal activity.

I have corresponded with entry clearance officers, and I know how they work. As I said on Second Reading, I want to help them. They will often set on one side the information given from this country. The applicant sitting before them may be very unsophisticated, with no knowledge with what the ECO is fishing for. The person who has invited the applicant may have a shop, and the applicant may be asked whether he will be working.

In normal circumstances, someone staying with a relative who has a shop would be odd not to help out, and that might be understood to mean work; but it would bring about an immediate refusal, because an application for a work permit is not being made. Unsophisticated applicants may be caught out—although it may not be intended—by questions with a legalistic base, which do not relate to the ordinary existence of those who issue invitations.

I agree with what Opposition Members have said. We want justice to be done. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment: to allow appeals to be heard more quickly so that families who are settled here can bring to this country wives and others who are at the end of a long appeals system, which to some extent is clogged by people who want to make short-term visits.

People usually issue invitations for important functions well in advance, and therefore should not be faced with refusals that can cause great offence. A doctor in my constituency did not speak for three months after his parents were refused the opportunity to come here. Fortunately, I was able to intervene, and eventually his parents were allowed entry. The shock and horror of refusal, after issuing a perfectly normal invitation to his parents to come and stay with him for a short time, caused tremendous offence to that doctor.

Many of us are very uneasy about there being no right of appeal. I do not know whether figures are available which show that people who came here on a visitor's visa stayed on illegally. I suspect that some have. It would be odd, given human nature, if that had not happened, but I suspect that the number is tiny, compared with the number of refusals.

I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about monitoring and about how account is to be taken both of the invitee and of the invitations issued by British citizens, who have every right to ask members of their families to join them here for important family occasions.

The Government add insult to injury by their amendment of clause 10. The injury is the removal of the right of appeal. The insult is the imposition of a monitor. What we wanted, what we hoped to see, was some sort of watchdog. What we got was a poodle—not just a poodle but a blinded poodle, a poodle with its vocal chords cut, a neutered poodle, a poodle incapable of uttering so much as the barest squeak of disapproval against any action taken by an entry clearance officer or any immigration officer who determines an application to enter at a port of entry. That is not good enough.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the sponsors, to those who issue the invitations. The experience of many of us—I cannot believe that it is confined to those who sit on this side of the House—is that the most important feature of a sponsor, someone who issues an invitation, and very often the determining feature of a sponsor, is not the merits of a particular case, whether it be an invitation to a wedding, a christening or another innocuous family event, but the colour of the sponsor and the race of the sponsor who issues the invitation. There is no escaping the issue of racism that underpins this provision.

I would not be making a protest with the force and strength that I do about this amendment if I, or any other hon. Member. could be satisfied that racism was not involved in the administration of the immigration system. We all know that it is. We all know that a different standard applies to visitors from Canada, the United States and other areas of the world from that which applies to the Indian subcontinent, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. If one's skin is black or brown, the reality is that one will be treated differently. That is the truth of the matter.

7.15 pm

I wish that the Minister could say with conviction that that is not the case, but he knows that it is the case and that different criteria apply depending upon the origin of those in the community who issue the invitations and the place to which they are sent. That is the conclusion to which all of us, regrettably, have come. No one should easily make the charge of racism. All too often it is easy enough to cry "Racist", but those of us who deal with these cases day in, day out do not make that charge lightly. It is a charge that is borne out by the facts.

What is so nauseating about amendment No. 10 is that, having abolished the right of appeal, it proposes the appointment of a monitor. This person will be appointed by the Secretary of State. His functions will be determined by the Secretary of State. He will be resourced by the Secretary of State. He will be expected to oversee the role of the entry clearance officers.

That is not good enough. There must be a better way. Those who take an interest in these matters are left with the suspicion that an agenda has been embraced by the Home Office: to seek every opportunity to minimise the capacity for there to be some surveillance, some control over the operation of the immigration rules by entry clearance officers and others.

The suspicion is that the Home Office does not want the entry clearance officers to be scrutinised or to be accountable, and that it wants those who make these decisions to know that the opportunities for scrutiny and for people to be brought to book where there has been injustice will be minimised.

The Minister has received many representations. I do not question the fact that he takes our representations seriously, nor do I question the care and attention that both he and those who work for him give to them. However, it is precisely because of that care and attention, and precisely because the Minister knows that, time and time again, injustices have occurred, by virtue of the nature of the decisions and the judgments that have been reached, that there ought to be a right of appeal.

It is precisely because the right of appeal is to be abolished, which we condemn, as does everyone who knows or cares about this subject, that we say that this monitoring process must be capable of providing some redress for those who suffer injustice as a result of the omissions and mistakes of the officials who are charged with this responsibility.

The proposed monitoring does not go far enough. We do not accept it. We believe that it is right to seek to strengthen it. Even at this late stage, we hope that the Minister will go at least some of the way towards recognising that the monitoring process needs to be beefed up and made more accountable to this House, so that individuals can be given some hope of redress.

As many of my hon. Friends have already said, the clause to which the amendment relates includes some of the most controversial aspects of the Bill and those most likely to affect people already living in this country. I am referring to the abolition of the right of appeal for visitors who are refused entry clearance and the great distress caused by such refusals to the families involved. The abolition will also apply to students.

Lords amendment No. 10 allows for the monitoring of refusals of entry clearance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, not refusals of leave to enter. That is an important distinction, which can be significant for people who arrive as potential visitors from countries where visas are not required before coming to the United Kingdom. I shall say more about that issue later.

The Government have said that all refusals will be checked by senior officers. I think that, in saying that, the Minister was attempting to reassure people that appeals would be dealt with in another way. However, reconsideration by a senior officer of a refusal will not give people confidence that an independent decision has been made. The amendment contains the Government's alternative proposal, which is to check or audit refusals of entry clearance. As has already been said, that is no substitute for the right of appeal, but, if that is how we are to proceed, we should at the very least do it properly, which is the purpose of our amendment.

I was interested in the way in which the amendment was first moved in another place. The Minister there spoke of the intention—the periodic review by an independent person of a sample of cases in which entry clearance had been refused. It was stated that the person appointed to carry out the review should be seen to be independent of the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that entry clearance officers and managers would not know in advance which cases were to be examined and that the results should be made public. It is worth questioning whether the amendment matches even those very limited aims. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in more detail how the monitoring will work.

Who will decide which cases are to be reconsidered? Will it be the monitor or the Home Office? In what depth will the cases be examined? What access will the monitor have to files? Will he be able to examine files from British posts abroad? Will he be allowed to examine instructions to entry clearance officers and sit in on interviews to see at first hand how the process is conducted? Will the annual report contain details of individual cases that the monitor has examined? If publication is to be merely a statistical exercise, it will be relatively worthless. Of course, the statistics of the cases checked by the monitor need to be published, but we should also be allowed to consider individual cases, to know what the monitor thought of them and his recommendations for improvements, if necessary. What level of staffing will be provided?

One reason that the Government gave for refusing the appeals system was cost. Another was the backlog that was building up. When the formal right of appeal has been abolished, there are likely to be more refusals and, therefore, more cases that the monitor should review. Even if a reasonable sample is taken—for example, 10 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North suggested—we could end up with a system under which the sample to be considered will be as great as that under the previous appeals system, but with much less chance of justice because the system will not provide redress to individuals.

I am especially concerned about the people who are refused entry, an issue dealt with in amendment (e). It is, of course, perfectly possible for people to be refused entry as opposed to entry clearance. Those who are refused entry do not at the moment have a formal right of appeal. Many avenues, such as approaching a Member of Parliament, have been cut off. Many people who have dealt with such cases, for example, hon. Members who have taken up the cases of constituents who are refused entry when arriving for a visit, will know of the inconsistencies and the subjective nature of the decisions made.

Why is one person refused entry, another given temporary admission and another admitted? It is often extremely difficult for anyone dealing with such cases to see any distinction between them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the one distinction that can often be made is the colour of the skin of the person applying to enter the country.

Last year, I had the experience of dealing with someone who had been stopped at Heathrow, arriving for a visit. A constituent contacted me about the case and was appalled at the way in which the person had been treated at the airport and the fact that his word was being questioned. In fact, in that instance, the person was a white American who could hardly believe what was happening. I told him that it happened every day, certainly to black and Asian constituents, whose friends and relatives are stopped at the airport. They may be angry, upset, annoyed and appalled that their word is being questioned, but they are never surprised because they know that it happens as a matter of course.

People often get in touch when a visitor is coming and ask whether they can contact me if they need help when the relative arrives at the airport. It is expected that the visitor will be stopped, especially where visas are not required and it is merely a refusal of entry—they are the cases which will not be monitored under the Government's proposals.

Our amendment would have the important effect of bringing refusals of entry into the monitoring system. Although such a provision might be inadequate, such cases would at least be considered in some form. Clearly, Lords amendment No. 10 will be accepted. As has been said, it is grossly inadequte, but if it is to be put into effect, our amendment, which should be accepted, would at the very least provide something of use. If the Lords amendment remains in its present form, it will be wholly inadequate.

It is right that Members of all parties should be concerned about the abolition of the appeals system. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the Bill's effect on community and race relations.

It cannot be emphasised too often that this part of the Bill affects many people, some of whom were born here or have been in Britain for a long time, who are perfectly entitled to be here and who are part and parcel of our country. They might invite someone to this country—usually a close relative or friend—and then find that it is extremely difficult for the invitee to get in, especially if the sponsor is of West Indian origin or is originally from the Indian sub-continent. When I dealt with such cases some years ago, it was rare for my clients to be European. The explanation is perfectly simple—Europeans have much less difficulty in coming here as visitors than do people from the West Indies or the Indian sub-continent.

What should concern the Government is the number of refusals—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—that have been overturned by the adjudicator. Why is it that in such a large percentage of cases in which a person has been refused entry—obviously a minority of cases, that is not in dispute—and in which an appeal has gone before an adjudicator in Britain, the refusal has been overturned? Without even being able to see the appellant involved—he cannot do that—the adjudicator has judged that the decision taken by the entry clearance officer is wrong and the appeal has been upheld.

Instead of being concerned that so many cases have been overturned, the Government have decided to abolish the right of appeal itself. The Government seem so embarrassed by the fact that those decisions have been overturned that they have decided not to allow that to occur any longer by taking away the right of appeal.

7.30 pm

I remember representing a young Palestinian woman who had been in Britain for a short time. She worked here, she was perfectly entitled to be here and she was not subject to any restrictions. She invited over her brother who was living in a middle eastern country. The entry clearance officer decided that the brother should not be allowed to enter Britain because he would have no incentive to leave this country. Fortunately, an appeal was made and when the case went before an adjudicator, his sister, the sponsor, explained that she had not seen her brother for a long time and that she was able to support him for the short period in which he would be living in Britain. I am pleased to say that the adjudicator decided that the appeal should be allowed.

I find it difficult to believe that, under the Government's proposal for someone to monitor refusals, such a case would come to the surface. After all, how many cases will the monitor consider? We have been told that it will not be literally every case. He may not look at one in five or even one in 10. The case to which I have referred might not even have come to the monitor's attention if such a position had existed in the past and if there had been no appeals system.

It must be emphasised that the entry clearance officer decides whether a person should enter the country on the basis of the facts that are presented. He must be satisfied that the person will leave Britain at the end of his stay. Of course, that is why there are quite a number of refusals and why the appeals system is in operation.

If the Minister had told us that the appeals system was being abolished because of the number of successful appeals after which a person, having won the right to come here on a visit, decided to overstay, at least we could have had some sort of reasoned argument, even if we disputed that statement. As I understand it, however, the Minister has not said that the appeals system is being abolished because people have abused it by deciding to stay, against the law, after winning their appeal, and that it has been a job for the Home Office to locate those people so that it can turf them out. We have not had a reasoned argument for the abolition of the appeals system.

I said in an intervention that the appeals system is useful because when the original decision is being taken by the entry clearance officer, that immigration official working abroad has to be careful. He or she knows that if the person is refused and there is an appeal, he will have to write an explanatory statement which will go before the adjudicator. He will have to set out all the arguments—sometimes four, five or six pages long—to justify the decision. That will no longer occur under the Government's proposals. The entry clearance officer, however conscientious he or she may be, will know that if the answer is no, the chances of the decision being challenged are very slim.

The monitor may pick up the decision during his year's work, but most likely that will not occur. If a Member of Parliament writes to the Minister, it is, again, not likely that the entry clearance officer will have to go to the same lengths to justify his decision as he would if there were an appeals system. The new system will work against the person who is trying to come to the United Kingdom for a genuine visit.

As we know, there has been an outburst during the past week or so about the number of people coming to Britain. There has been an upsurge of racism among Conservative Members, although fortunately a small minority. Again, the race card is being played and, again, we are being told as we have been told previously of the hordes of people who are coming over to Britain and of the alien invasion.

We know how tight immigration control is in practice. We know how difficult it is for people to come over here. We know that primary immigration into Britain ended years ago. Those of my hon. Friends who take up cases all the time know how difficult it is for many people even to be able to come on a visit here if they come from the Indian sub-continent or from the West Indies. That is a fact. It is unfortunate that people who legitimately want to invite a close relative or friend or friend from the parts of the world that I have mentioned should find it even more difficult as a result of the Government's decision.

The Minister is a courteous person. I have found that whatever decisions he reaches, he is always willing to listen, unlike some of his predecessors. I am sure that my hon. Friends appreciate that we have a Home Office Minister who is courteous and who at least listens to our representations. However, he has a very bad brief. The Government have taken a wrong decision which is harmful to community and race relations. Perhaps even at this very late stage—one is obviously not hopeful—there will be further serious consideration of the proposal by the new Home Secretary.

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has enormous experience of dealing with immigration and race policies, especially as he is a former chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that it would be unacceptable to replace a right of appeal with the administrative arrangements that he had in mind then. The whole House regrets the fact that he chooses now to add the official monitor to his list of administrative arrangements. That will not make up for the fact that the right of appeal will be removed.

On Second Reading and when we most recently discussed the matter, I listed a number of immigration officers and entry clearance officers in posts abroad. I shall not repeat their names for fear of further damaging their careers. I told the Minister then that those entry clearance officers were very concerned about the fact that the Government proposed to take away the right of appeal. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he has now had a chance to consult those entry clearance officers and that they are in full agreement with the Government's decision to remove the right of appeal and to replace it by the appointment of the monitor.

It is not clear precisely whom the Minister has in mind to be the official monitor.

Lord Owen.

Perhaps the Minister has in mind the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), the uninvited guest of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). Perhaps he will be chosen because of his unbiased and fair views on immigration policy. The House has a right to know how the monitor will be chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has suggested Lord Owen. Lord Walker may be another possibility, as he seems to sit on most of the quangos that the Government have created. The identity of the monitor is of great interest to the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) refers to the proposal as being akin to putting in place a neutered poodle without vocal chords. I think it is akin to something even smaller than a poodle—perhaps a neutered chihuahua with no vocal chords. Clearly, the person appointed by the Minister will be responsible to him. It is clear that it would not be possible for that person to take the place of a well established appeals system that has proved in many cases to be one in which people can have faith.

I am concerned about the great backlog in the appeal system and I wish that cases could have been dealt with much more quickly. It is odd when there is a backlog simply to abolish the tribunal that is considering the cases.

The entry clearance officers in Bombay and in New Delhi told me that they want a fair system. They thought that it was wrong that they should have to second-guess themselves, because they could not possibly act impartially once they had rejected a case. Even if that case were given to another member of staff—perhaps a more senior member such as a first secretary—that person would still be in close contact with the other entry clearance officers. They preferred a system whereby "an independent tribunal"—dare I repeat the words that the Minister writes to hon. Members almost every week?—"set up by Parliament to consider independently the merits of the case" should consider that case.

I pick up on a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Ministerial decisions have been hived off to officials and quangos such as that which will no doubt surround the new official monitor. My hon. Friend's point concerned the way in which hon. Members have to deal with immigration officers at Heathrow airport and other ports. He is right to raise the serious problems that are now occurring because of the misuse of the guidelines by immigration officers.

Those in the Minister's private office know all about one case of mine because I rang up and had a rant to them about it. As usual, I was dealt with very courteously. Under the present guidelines, hon. Members must deal with officials at both the posts and at the ports. Instead of a reasonable conversation with the Minister or one of his officials, hon. Members must deal with officers who, by the nature of their shift pattern, have to go off after dealing with a case and interviewing a client. That case is taken over by another immigration officer who has no direct knowledge of the way in which the matter was dealt with. A relative of a constituent of mine was kept in detention for 48 hours because officials could not find an interpreter in the language of his choice. It cost the taxpayer more to keep that person in detention rather than to give him temporary admission.

When I asked for permission to speak to that person, I was told by the immigration officer that I would have to leave my constituency duties in Leicester and travel to Heathrow where I would be allowed to interview the person. The officer did not consider it appropriate in those circumstances for the person to be put on temporary admission, although the person's sponsor, who was well known to me, was prepared to give any guarantee necessary in order to ensure that that person was properly interviewed. It is a denial of the rights of hon. Members that we are not permitted to see such people at our surgeries in our constituencies.

Everyone has, to some extent, lavished the Minister with praise about how courteous, kind, nice and reasonable he is. I have yet to experience an occasion on which I have brought to the Minister's attention the case of an abandoned spouse when he has been courteous and offered me a cup of tea and said that that person could stay. Perhaps he will do so in the future.

If the Minister will not listen to the views of Opposition Members and also those of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who has yet again come out in support of the rights of people to be able to visit their relatives in this country, he should listen to voluntary organisations. Those organisations—such as the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—have come forward with tremendous experience. Those organisations and others, including the churches, have urged him to think again about the removal of the right of appeal and I urge him even at this late stage to do so.

I have listened to the debate with care. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the refusal of temporary admission and to people's being kept in detention. I emphasise that temporary admission is considered and granted wherever possible. It must be for the immigration service to decide where that is not appropriate. I suspect—1 am guessing here—that the hon. Gentleman may have been referring to a recent case concerning a constituent of his who was a sponsor of someone who came from Malawi. I may have that right or I may have it wrong. I suspect from the name of the individual concerned that he came from northern Malawi. If so, he need have looked no further than to me if he wanted someone to exchange a few words in Chichewa with that individual—but I will leave it at that.

The House will be aware that the abolition of appeals against refusal of visit visas and the right of appeal against mandatory refusals has already been debated and passed in both Houses. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who opened the debate, talked of strengthening the monitoring process. In fact, the Opposition amendments seek to do more than that: effectively, they seek to reinstate the appeal powers.

The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 seek to reinstate some form of appeal process for visitors and others who lose their right of appeal under the provisions of the Bill. When my noble friend the Minister of State accepted amendment No. 10—it was, of course, Baroness Flather who moved it—he made it clear that we were not contemplating some alternative form of appeal system by which applicants or sponsors could seek to have the decision in an individual case overturned, but, rather, a periodic review or audit of a random sample of entry clearance refusals by an independent person, to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making were maintained. The Opposition's proposed amendments seek, in effect, to hijack that scheme and turn it into something very different. Not only do they seek to create an avenue through which to challenge decisions in individual cases; they would create a system that would be even more wasteful, cumbersome and ineffective than the appeals procedures that are to be abolished.

Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (f) seek to involve the Commission of Racial Equality in the process, either by having the Commission conduct the monitoring or by having it nominate the person who is appointed to conduct the exercise. The Commission performs a valuable service in promoting race relations, but the proposed monitoring of administrative procedures and decisions by entry clearance officers is simply not an appropriate function to give to that body.

Amendment (d) would make the appointed person rather than the Secretary of State responsible for determining the manner in which the monitoring should be conducted. We have made it clear, however, that the person appointed will have a wide degree of independence in the way in which he conducts the exercise. The choice of which cases should be reviewed will be entirely his. However, the exercise must in practice be conducted within agreed guidelines on such matters as how long the exercise should last, how many posts should be visited and when the report is produced. Those matters must ultimately be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I refer here to the Foreign Secretary because this matter concerns the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Amendment (e) would extend the scope of the monitoring to cover refusals of leave to enter at United Kingdom ports as well as refusals of entry clearance. That is simply not practical. It has nothing to do with my noble Friend's amendment—nor is it necessary in order to maintain consistent standards at the ports.

Amendment (g) would require monthly rather than annual reports to be made to the Secretary of State. That implies a continuous monitoring process, rather than the periodic audit review that is envisaged. It is not, in our view, justified.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) talked about Somali asylum seekers and about family reunion in cases of exceptional leave to remain after four years. A distinction must be drawn between the granting of exceptional leave to remain and the granting of refugee status under the terms of the Geneva convention.

In an entertaining contribution, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that it was monstrous that this country should abolish appeals in such cases. However, he omitted to tell the House that we are the only country in the world to have such a system. Other countries do not have such a system—not because of a lack of innate fairness, but simply because they know that the system that we have employed for the past 20 years is cumbersome and does not work.

Millions of people visit this country every year. There were 5·7 million visitors in 1991, in addition to other short-term visitors, and that figure relates just to non-EC nationals. If we add the EC nationals to the total, it is clear that we provide a broad welcome. The House might wish to recall that more than 92 per cent. of applications for visit visas were approved in 1991.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to sponsors. I agree with them that some appeals have certainly been prompted by a sense of hurt on the part of sponsors when they face rejection. That is precisely why in Committee we introduced the various administrative improvements which include guidance for the sponsor, guidance for the applicant and a daily review at the station by senior officials. If there is swift feedback of additional information that alters the case, it will be dealt with promptly. If a refusal notice is issued, it will be clear that that will not prejudice further applications.

The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) referred to racism. I entirely reject his assertion. I remind the House that there is a clear-cut policy in the immigration service with regard to racism to ensure that there is absolutely no prejudice in the service. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of discussions, both in Committee and outside with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I have introduced a new system of auditing complaints against the immigration service which will be independent of Home Office officials. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an important step forward.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way for the moment. I will break my generous rule for once because I am aware of the time.

The audit of the work of entry clearance officers will act as a check on that work.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) referred to refusals. It must make much more sense to consider the refusals each day rather than to launch into a cumbersome appeals system which may run for two years, by which time the event, in respect of which someone originally intended to come to this country, will long since have passed. I remind the hon. Member for Walthamstow, as I reminded the House earlier, that amendment No. 10 was not moved by my noble Friend the Minister of State. It was moved by Baroness Flather.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North, whose work as chairman of UKIAS was outstanding and distinguished, also referred to the need to control the work of entry clearance officers. I remind him that there will be a daily review by the senior officer in post in addition to the audit system that I have described.

Will the audit of complaints against immigration officers be published and reported to the House on a regular basis? The Minister has made great play of the daily review. Clearly hon. Members will be passed much information and complaints when applications are refused. Should we ring the Minister's office or that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when we want to pass on that information which ECOs around the world will be desperately anxious to receive on a daily basis?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. In response to his second question, when he is dealing with entry clearance officers, he must approach my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

I refer briefly to Government amendment (j). Amendment No. 10 requires a person to be appointed to monitor a sample of entry clearance refusals. The person carrying out that function will obviously have to be paid an appropriate fee and other expenses such as travel costs will have to be met. Amendment (j) provides the authority for those payments to be made. As I have already said, the scheme will be administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the appointment will be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

With respect to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, concerns have been expressed in both Houses that, unless the system is open to some form of independent oversight, inconsistent and arbitrary decision making may follow removal of the right of appeal. The Government intend to ensure that the entry clearance system is fair and consistent and that it is properly controlled. The Government were happy to accept amendment No. 10, which provides for the appointment of an independent person to carry out periodic monitoring of a sample of entry clearance work to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making are maintained.

I make it clear that we are not contemplating an alternative appeals procedure. This will not be a procedure for applicants or sponsors to seek to have a decision in an individual case overturned. The monitoring will complement the administrative measures that I announced in Committee, including the daily review of refusals by entry clearance managers, to which I have already alluded. Matters of detail are in the process of being worked out. However, I can confirm that the key features of the scheme that will be introduced are as follows: the monitoring will be conducted over a regular period; the person appointed to conduct the exercise will be independent of the Home Office and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; entry clearance officers and managers will not know in advance which of their cases are to be examined—that is where the control element lies; and the reports of the independent person will be made public.

I hope that that goes some way towards allaying the fears that have been expressed by some hon. Members that the removal of rights of appeal will lead to arbitrary decision making. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to accept the Government amendments.