With permission, I wish to make a statement on the Legg report.

When I appointed Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs to conduct their inquiry, I asked them to complete their work before the House rose for the recess in order that I might report it to the House. I am publishing their report today, on the first sitting day after I received it.

The inquiry interviewed seven Ministers and 49 officials. Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs had access to all the relevant official papers. A member of their team conducted a random search of the files at the Foreign Office and found no document of any relevance to the inquiry which had not already been disclosed.

One of the first findings of the report is that Sandline International and its arms played little or no part in the removal of the junta from Sierra Leone. It is therefore not surprising that the citizens of Sierra Leone cannot comprehend why anyone looks for evidence of a political scandal in the restoration of a civilian Government, in place of a brutal and savage military regime.

Nor have Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs uncovered any political scandal, after a lengthy inquiry and a search through all the files. Their key findings, in their own words, are that

"No Minister gave encouragement or approval to Sandline's plan to send a shipment of arms into Sierra Leone."

Officials of the African department

"neither encouraged nor approved the Sandline contract".

The report concludes:

"at no time did they advocate or authorise actions in breach of the law."

Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs find no fault with the conduct of the military liaison officers. In the matter of the much publicised repair to the Sandline helicopter by the crew of HMS Cornwall, the report finds that their action

"was not improper and was sensible in the circumstances",

in that

"it helped HMS Cornwall to carry out its humanitarian mission".

The briefings that Ministers received for the debates on 10 and 12 March were "deficient" and did not provide them with the briefing that they should have received on the referral of the allegations of a breach of the arms embargo.

In sum, after an exhaustive trawl of the files and more than 60 hearings of witnesses, the Legg inquiry has concluded that there was no policy by Ministers to breach the arms embargo, and there was no conspiracy among officials to undermine Government policy.

As the Legg report finds, there were a number of misjudgments by officials, largely due to overload. I have therefore asked the permanent secretary to interview each of the relevant officials and to counsel them on the basis of the findings concerning them—[Interruption.] This is a matter of supreme importance to the careers of a large number of officials. It does no credit to those officials to treat it as a matter of levity. Hon. Members may wish to hear that the Legg report notes:

"the officials concerned were working hard and conscientiously and should not be judged too harshly".

I therefore see no case for any further action against officials.

Mr. Penfold, the high commissioner to Sierra Leone, showed great courage and a commitment to staying at his post during the military coup last year. As a result of his consistent support to President Kabbah, he has won high standing for Britain in the country where he represents Britain. However, the Legg report details a number of criticisms of Mr. Penfold. Mr. Penfold should have taken steps to inform himself more fully about the scope of the arms embargo. He showed a lack of caution in his dealings with Colonel Spicer and to that extent gave Sandline a degree of approval for which he had no authority. He should have made more efforts to ensure that the African department had a proper record of his conversations with President Kabbah and Colonel Spicer. I have asked the permanent secretary to write to him drawing his attention to the relevant findings of the Legg report, but in the circumstances I do not think it would be justified, or in the diplomatic interest, to take any further proceedings against him.

Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs state that they hope that the report will help the Foreign Office to close the chapter for officials. I agree with them. There will be no scapegoats, and this should be the end of the matter as far as individual officials are concerned. However, for the Foreign Office as an institution, the Legg report must provide the opening of a new chapter.

As Foreign Secretary, I am responsible for the Department and I am determined that we should find out why mistakes were made and make sure that they cannot happen again. The Legg report concludes that most of the trouble originated from systemic and cultural factors. I am therefore today announcing a sweeping programme of changes to address those institutional problems.

During the period covered by the inquiry, from October last year, the managerial structures of the Foreign Office remained exactly as we inherited them in May last year. The departmental hierarchies were the same. The working practices were the same. The procedures for the handling of intelligence were the same. The time has come to change them. The final chapter of the Legg report helpfully details the lessons that must be applied in the future management of the Foreign Office. I am pleased to tell the House that we accept every one of the recommendations in the report.

The Legg report finds that there was not "a sufficiently high priority" for the enforcement of sanctions. There was a dedicated sanctions enforcement desk in the Foreign Office, but the previous Government abolished it in 1996. I can tell the House that I have instructed that such a central unit shall be restored. It will be led by an official whose sole function is to make sure that the enforcement of sanctions receives the full priority that it deserves.

The Legg report expresses concern at the handling of defence intelligence reports when they arrive in the Foreign Office. It is not acceptable that even one such report should have been destroyed before being seen by the relevant official. I have therefore strengthened the procedures to ensure that all such reports are properly logged and that there are clear instructions for their distribution.

The Legg report concludes that there should be

"more explicit guidance on how to manage relations"

with private military companies. I have issued guidance that there should be no Foreign Office contact with private military firms without permission, and that where such meetings do take place they should recorded in a full, written report.

The Legg report found that

"the demands on some Foreign Office officials meant that they had to work at or beyond the limits of their capacity"

and that

"this was a contributory cause of what went wrong".

During the previous Parliament, my two predecessors at the Foreign Office accepted cuts in their budget of 14 per cent. During the period in office of the previous Prime Minister, the number of staff of desk officer grade in London fell by a quarter. Conservative Members have become fond of describing the Foreign Office as a Rolls-Royce. It is a pity that they tried to run it on two-star petrol.

Only one decade ago, there were 430 staff in the African command. Now there are 328—a loss of about 100 posts. That sharp reduction of staff at the time of an increase in crises in Africa was part of the reason why mistakes were made by staff under impossible pressure. The recent spending review provides the first real increase in the Foreign Office budget for half a dozen years. I have given instructions that part of that increase must be used to strengthen the number of staff on the hard-pressed desks dealing with west Africa and Sierra Leone.

The last lesson of the Legg report is that—[Interruption.] It would have been welcome if hon. Members now chattering had taken some of those actions during the 18 years in which they were in office. After those 18 years, the Legg report finds that there is room for improvement in modern management at the Foreign Office and for fewer layers in the hierarchy. The Foreign Office attracts many of the brightest and most energetic recruits to Whitehall. They deserve a management structure that makes full use of their energy and enables them to rise on merit.

I can announce today that we have agreed on a programme of 60 different measures to improve the management of the Foreign Office. We shall recruit professional managers to specialist posts such as administration, personnel and resources to bring to the Foreign Office modern management methods. We shall increase temporary exchanges to and from the private sector, non-governmental organisations and the academic world, to bring the Foreign Office up to date with working practices and policy thinking in the outside world.

We shall introduce assessment centres to evaluate staff performance to make sure that promotion is made on merit. We shall reduce the hierarchy in the Foreign Office to enable officials to take more responsibility sooner. We shall improve the gender and ethnic balance throughout the Foreign Office—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will observe that Opposition Members do not want a Foreign Office that is representative of all the strengths of modern Britain.

In developing this programme, we have drawn on proposals for change from younger officials. I want them also—not only senior management—to have ownership of this project. I shall therefore invite a number of younger officials to form a working group to monitor progress and come up with fresh ideas.

I have addressed those parts of the Legg report that demolish the fantasy of a ministerial or official conspiracy. Before concluding, I want to address the reality of what has happened in Sierra Leone.

Britain was first on the scene with humanitarian aid after the restoration of President Kabbah. Since the last debate in the House, we have provided police officers to help train a new civilian police force, sponsored the United Nations resolution to provide military observers and provided staff to be those military observers. We are providing aid to fund the process of civil reconstruction and military demobilisation.

Britain is, to date, the only donor to the UN trust fund for Sierra Leone. On Wednesday, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), will attend a donors' conference in New York and will urge others in the international community to join us in helping to fund democracy in Sierra Leone.

I have been challenged to produce the report by my hon. Friend the Minister of State after his visit to Sierra Leone in March. I have no difficulty in sharing with the House his key conclusion:

"It would be hard to find anywhere on the planet at the moment where there is more enthusiasm for Britain. Our moral, financial and practical support really is welcomed and appreciated."

That is the reality of Britain's standing in Sierra Leone among the people who know at first hand about our dealings with their country.

I therefore welcome the findings of the Legg inquiry. I shall implement all its recommendations, which will help to give Britain a modern Foreign Office. Now that the report has been published, it is time that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) started to recognise the immense good will for Britain that we have secured in Sierra Leone and tried to understand that that represents a success, not a failure of foreign policy.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the access to the report that he gave me this morning, and for the slightly less generous access that he gave me to the statement that he has just made.

This report, although no one would ever have guessed it from the complacency of the Foreign Secretary's statement, discloses a dire state of affairs in one of our great Departments of State. It is severely critical both of Ministers and of officials, and Ministers directly bear responsibility for the most serious failures.

When the Foreign Secretary first came to the House to deal with this matter in response to my private notice question on 6 May, he said that it was a serious matter that should be treated "with great gravity". When Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, was first fully briefed on the matter, he minuted:

"This could be very serious."

Both he and the Foreign Secretary were right, as is made clear by the report. Their attitude is in sharp contrast with that of the Prime Minister, who described it all as "overblown hoo-hah".

The inquiry that led to this report was not the inquiry that we asked for. It should have been held in public. If the Foreign Secretary had meant what he said about the need for an open investigation, it would have been held in public. The notes of evidence taken by the inquiry have not been published. Will the Foreign Secretary now undertake to publish them in the interests of open government, so that everyone can reach his own judgment, and will he publish the documents that are listed in the appendices to the report?

The picture painted by this report is of a Foreign Office in shambles. We already knew that Ministers contradicted each other and themselves, that officials contradicted Ministers and themselves and that telegrams were lost and faxes destroyed, but the detailed evidence in the report is almost beyond belief. Letters from the high commissioner go missing, reports from the military liaison officer in Sierra Leone are destroyed, officials are asked to attend meetings to take a note because they

"should be on their guard",

but no note is taken.

In all, the report contains an amazing 30 specific criticisms of the Foreign Office. It attributes those failures to what it describes as "systemic and cultural factors". We do not have to look very far to identify the source of those factors. In a television programme entitled "How To Be Foreign Secretary", the Foreign Secretary made the following boast:

"I have found that you can be a successful Foreign Secretary if you focus on the big questions and not necessarily finish the paperwork."

If officials know that the Foreign Secretary is not going to finish the paperwork, what incentive do they have to take care of it? The Foreign Secretary has told us about all the things that he intends to do to sort out the Foreign Office. Does he not accept that the cultural factors that are referred to in the report are a direct result of his own attitude and of the approach that he boasts that he takes?

The report is not exhaustive. It does not, for example, comment explicitly on the protestations of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has responsibility for Africa, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and of the Foreign Secretary on his behalf that the Minister of State saw papers merely for noting in mid-April and was not fully informed of the allegations made by Sandline until 1 May; but is it not crystal clear from paragraphs 9.50 to 9.56 of the report that the Minister of State knew all the essentials of those allegations in mid-April, considered them in detail and did nothing?

The Foreign Secretary told the House that those papers gave rise to

"no ground for apprehension or concern"

.—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 160.] The report describes those same papers as "sensitive and potentially troublesome". Given the complete inconsistency between the account of events in the report and the account given to the House and its Select Committee by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, does the Foreign Secretary now accept that his earlier account was completely inaccurate, and will he now withdraw it?

Most damning of all, the report explains very clearly what in essence went wrong and why. The Foreign Secretary said that the report failed to uncover any political scandal. That is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's culture of complacency. In fact, the report concludes that the Foreign Office should have explained both the arms embargo imposed by the United Nations resolution and the Order in Council more widely and effectively. The report states that their failure to do so created a hazard for all who were affected. The nature of that hazard is clear: it is that British citizens might commit a criminal offence under the Order in Council and risk imprisonment for seven years in consequence.

The cause of the failure to explain the arms embargo more effectively is equally clear. Devastatingly, the report concludes that, although the British framers of the United Nations resolution that imposed the arms embargo on Sierra Leone intended that embargo to be comprehensive in its coverage and had no doubt that it was, British officials and Ministers—and Ministers—played the report down, not accidentally but deliberately. That is the report's finding, and the reason, at least in part, was that Ministers knew that there were those on the ground in west Africa who, in the words of the report, explicitly contemplated the use of force. Paragraph 3.29 of the report states:

"Government has a responsibility to give citizens, and its own officials, reasonable publicity and explanation of the laws it makes under delegated powers, especially laws creating criminal offences."

That was not done in this case. Given that failure and the report's finding that it was the result of a deliberate attempt by Ministers to deceive, how can the Foreign Secretary remain in office?

I have to report to the House that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe had six hours in which to prepare that response, in the course of which he could find only five questions. That is despite the fact that his six hours to study one volume was twice as long as the time that I had to study the five volumes of the Scott inquiry. I am bound to say that I came back with more than five questions.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reading of the report does not seem to have been complete. He quoted paragraph 9.55 as showing that my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not closely consider the documents that were given to him because, as it stated in the paragraph "their allegations were sensitive"—[Interruption.] That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. He read that paragraph. I shall read to the House the rest of the paragraph. It states that the documents:

"were also misleading, since they appeared to be saying that the FCO had no prior knowledge of any shipment of arms. In the absence of reference to the full facts …they were substantially incomplete."

My hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that he reached in mid-April.

The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe says that the report is severely critical of Ministers. He has the opportunity to speak again at the end of this exchange. I challenge him to find one single paragraph in the hundred-odd pages of the report which is severely critical of Ministers. Of course he complained that this was not a public inquiry, but a private, independent inquiry not held in public. That is a bit rich from a right hon. and learned Member who as Home Secretary never once ordered a public inquiry into the 17 times that he lost cases in the courts. For that matter, he never once ordered an independent Legg-type inquiry either. In reality, he wanted a public inquiry because it would have taken another two years to finish, in the course of which he could have gone around every studio peddling his conspiracy theories without their being knocked on the head as they have been today.

Having found nothing of substance in the report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman fell back on the device of playing the man rather than playing the ball. His attacks on me would be offensive if his own record did not make them comic. After all, he was the Home Secretary who explained that he was not responsible when the IRA escaped from prisons, because that was an operational matter. He was responsible for the policy, which was to keep them inside.

I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a partner and I am glad that events today have confirmed that we will be together for another year. He is very helpful to me. However, in fairness to everybody else, it is time that he started to show some interest in serious foreign policy questions, instead of making mountains out of molehills, as he has done on this issue.

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to see the Legg report in advance, which I commend to other Ministers as an excellent precedent in dealing with Chairmen of Select Committees. Having read the report over some seven hours this morning, I do not recognise the description given by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

Is not the clear message in the report that no Minister encouraged, approved or had knowledge of the sale of arms to Sierra Leone? Although the misunderstandings, accidents and human failings which are detailed clearly in the report need to be seriously addressed, they give no support to those who have consistently tried to pillory Ministers to go for the men and the women and not for the ball, and who tried, unavailingly, to dress up the matter as though it were an arms to Iraq scandal.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for his statement and for his thanks to me for making the report available to him six hours before this statement. He has plainly considered the report with his usual close attention and diligence. I confirm that he has come to the absolutely correct conclusion—[Interruption.]—as will every other hon. Member who bothers to read his way through the report.

The report makes it clear that there was no ministerial approval, encouragement or prior knowledge of the Sandline contract. I look forward to my exchange tomorrow with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, when I will be able to demonstrate that to all its members.

Notwithstanding the constrained language of the report and the Foreign Secretary's characteristic and robust defence, is not the truth that the report reveals an embarrassing catalogue of error and inadequate management, which has no doubt substantially dented the Foreign Office's reputation for effortless superiority?

As the report finds that senior officials in the Foreign Office did not give sanctions enforcement a sufficiently high priority, whose was the responsibility for that? As the report finds that Mr. Penfold acted without authority in some matters and showed a lack of caution in others, whose was the responsibility for that? Who was directing his actions in an area of foreign policy of obvious importance to the Government? Where is the evidence of the ministerial scrutiny which the House was entitled to expect?

Why did the Minister of State persist in giving the impression in the House and elsewhere that the arms embargo was confined to the military junta which had seized power, when it clearly applied to any transfer of arms to anyone in Sierra Leone, as the report has found? If, as the report concludes, misunderstanding of the arms embargo was a significant part of the problem, did not the Minister of State contribute to that misunderstanding?

The Foreign Secretary has made substantial proposals for the restructuring of the Department, but the House would be interested to know what lessons Ministers intend to learn from these matters.

I can respond straight away to the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. We have already issued guidance on the briefing for Ministers, in particular that there should be a clear and highly prominent display of those points that are likely to be sensitive in Parliament and among the public.

To pick up one of the wider points made in the Legg report, it highlights that there has been a lack of sensitivity in the handling of a matter that might be of concern to Parliament and the public. That is why I believe that it is important to press ahead with the commitments that I have given the House to increase exchanges to and from the Foreign Office with the outside world, in order to break down what is possibly too closed a culture within the Foreign Office.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about contact and control of the high commissioner to Sierra Leone. In fairness to both sides, it should be borne in mind that he was operating in unique circumstances. He was in an hotel in a country where there was no British mission, and where there was therefore no opportunity for secure communication.

That is not true.

As a matter of fact, it is true. The high commissioner was in an hotel in Conakry, where we have no British mission. Therefore, any secure communication he made had to go via either Germany or Nigeria. In those circumstances, the breakdown in communication is understandable, but it should not have happened.

I should like to pick up the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remark. There are lessons in the matter for Foreign Office management, and I have outlined to the House how I intend to act on them. I hope that I will be able to work with the Select Committee in seeing through those changes and in discussing how we shall apply them. However, I tell both him and the House that, going into that programme of changes, it will not help us to encourage anyone to believe that there is effortless superiority on the part of anyone. It is important that we frankly examine the things that went wrong, work out why they went wrong, learn from those mistakes and show the humility—all within the Foreign Office—to apply the lessons of those mistakes.

Will the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that many people are uncomfortable about firms such as Sandline being able to continue operating from the United Kingdom? I wonder whether Ministers will examine the efficacy of such military outfits working from here, and consider whether, as a matter of principle, they should be regulated or banned from operating in the United Kingdom.

We are overstretched not only in Africa but, for example, in the Caspian region and in the former Soviet Union's Asian republics. As a crisis comparable with that in Sierra Leone could occur in other dangerous spots in the world, is there not serious overstretch which has to be dealt with urgently? The Foreign Secretary has already given the example of Conakry, which has no United Kingdom representation. Does not our level of representation stand in stark contrast to that of the Federal Republic of Germany, which has many more diplomatic missions—diplomats and trade officials—around the world, yet does not have the legacy of modern empire and obligations, as we do? Is it not time that we substantially increased both the number of countries in which we are represented and the number of diplomats representing us there?

First—in response to my hon. Friend's question about military firms—the Government will continue to keep the matter under review. I am interested in the regulations for such firms that South Africa has introduced. However, I should tell him that the immediate first step is the one that we were right to have taken: to ensure that any Foreign Office contact with such firms occurs only with permission and with a full report on a written record. That arrangement is now in place and should prevent a recurrence of some of the difficulties that arose from incautious contacts with Sandline over this year.

My hon. Friend made a perfectly reasonable point on overstretch. All the countries in the Caspian basin region became independent new countries at the very time when the previous Government were cutting the Foreign Office budget and there were no spare resources to be redeployed. Consequently, we have 13 diplomats in total among five countries there, compared with more than 80 diplomats from Germany. That is the current situation in a region that will very shortly be producing 10 per cent. of the world's oil production—which is why it is so important that we ensure that we have a more adequate diplomatic representation. I can tell my hon. Friend that one of the priority areas where we will be spending our extra resources will be the Caspian region.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, my main concern is to know whether the Foreign Secretary has no shame. Does he have no embarrassment at blaming a shortage of officials for his Ministers' failure to read and act on their papers? Does he have absolutely no embarrassment at dumping almost all the blame on Peter Penfold and accepting absolutely none himself? Does he have no embarrassment at publishing the findings of the Legg inquiry while refusing to publish the evidence?

It is not I but the Legg report that is pointing out that many of the mistakes that occurred had, as a contributory cause, the fact that, to use the Legg report's words, officials in the Foreign Office had

"to work at or beyond the limits of their capacity."

It was the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported who left us with a Foreign Office in which those officials faced that impossible overload. The hon. Gentleman asks about shame; I am inclined to ask him whether the previous Government have no shame about putting officials in the position of having far too heavy a work load to discharge.

I would perfectly happily accept any criticisms of myself in the report, but there are none. There are some criticisms of Peter Penfold, but I thought that I put them perfectly in perspective to the House. He is a high commissioner who has served Britain well, and I have no intention of taking further formal disciplinary proceedings against him. As I said, there will be no scapegoats. The important thing is that, as an institution, we learn the lessons and make the necessary changes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of the Legg report has exposed the cynical attempt by Members on the Opposition Front Bench and some members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to create something of substance out of something that simply did not exist? The previous Government are responsible for the cuts in budget, staff and the enforcement desk. Instead of allowing the Select Committee to get on with its real work, the Opposition have tried to use it to concoct a conspiracy. Should not those who continually call for the resignation of my hon. Friend the Minister of State start apologising to the House?

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West makes his own points in his own way, and it is unnecessary for me to add to them. However, as he refers to the Select Committee, of which he is a member, I should like to say that I hope that the publication of the report will enable us to close a chapter in the relationship between the Foreign Office and the Select Committee. Having gone through the report, I do not believe that there is any further fact left to be chased about what happened. Where I would welcome a constructive engagement with the Select Committee is in making sure that the Foreign Office and I are harried, pursued and kept up to scratch in putting in place the programme of reform that I have announced today.

The Foreign Secretary has told the House that the Legg report confirms that the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State were briefed on 10 and 12 March. Does that not call into question some of the subsequent ministerial statements? What were the alleged deficiencies in those briefings on 10 and 12 March? Finally, will the reforms to the Foreign Office procedures, which the Foreign Secretary has announced today, include an improvement of the procedure whereby the Foreign Secretary signs important authorisations submitted to him by the Director General of GCHQ, so that in future the Foreign Secretary will not incur the wrath of or any rebuke from the security controller?

I did indeed say that Ministers were briefed for the debates on 10 and 12 March—it would have been quite extraordinary if they had not been briefed. However, I also told the House that they were not briefed that allegations of a breach of the arms embargo had been passed to Customs and Excise. For the record, the report says that the briefing in relation to Baroness Symons was "inaccurate, incoherent and indigestible".

The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the question of the signing of warrants. I concede straight away that there was an error at the end of last year, when the wrong form was attached to a submission for a warrant submitted to me. I read the submission and signed the form, unaware that it was the wrong form. I apologise to the House for that error. As the commissioner very fairly acknowledged, I have put in place procedures to make sure that that can never happen again.

The experience has prompted me to read the back numbers of the reports of commissioners. I discovered that in the last three years of the previous Government, there was not one error, not three errors, but 33 errors, including one when the Secretary of State dated the warrant but failed to sign it. I have apologised to the House for that one error. I hope that the Conservatives will apologise for their 33 errors.

In the spirit that my right hon. Friend suggests of constructive thoughts as to the future management structure of the Foreign Office, I recall there being a hierarchical, centralised decision-making system. The report describes an alternative structure of autonomous commands, and it seems most extraordinary that information did not come out of the Department, even to senior officials, let alone Ministers. Does that not leave room for thought and reconsideration in the light of the findings of the report?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about one of the key findings of the report—the need to improve communications within the Foreign Office, part of which may be to do with the hierarchy within the Foreign Office. I am anxious that we should consider that very carefully, because I want to minimise the number of steps through which any piece of information must go before it reaches the effective level. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be pursuing that, I hope in co-operation with the Select Committee.

Not being a member of the press, who as ever have had days and waves of spin and information, and not being Chairman of the Select Committee, I have only the Secretary of State' s statement. It seemed to be a breathless account of shameless complacency and buck passing by a Foreign Secretary who invested unprecedented amounts in promoting his ethical foreign policy and launching his mission statement—a coffee-table book on human rights, with more photographs than text, including one of himself shaking hands with President Suharto of Indonesia. Does he now think that all that effort on videos, coffee-table books, spin and hype could have been better spent in ensuring that his Department was running better? Is this not another example of the total preoccupation with style over substance that characterises the Government?

If I recall rightly, the launch of the mission statement last May cost exactly £6,000. The right hon. Lady's point entirely overlooks everything that I have said about modern management methods and about the fact that no private sector organisation approaching anything like the scale of the Foreign Office would not have a clear, agreed mission statement from the top.

As for publishing a human rights report, that was one of our manifesto commitments. It may surprise the right hon. Lady to hear this, but we believe that it is a priority to carry out our manifesto commitments. The cost of publishing that report was well below the travel budget of the Select Committee in investigating it.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, although it is surprising, if the Legg report found nothing seriously wrong, that it should be the occasion of no fewer than 60 changes to the management of the Foreign Office. Does he agree that one matter of particular interest to those outside the House who have a real interest in Africa is the increased scrutiny and control of officials' relationships with mercenaries? Mercenary forces have played a particularly malign role in the history of Africa post-independence. I hope that, arising from the Legg report, there will be more and better scrutiny of how officials relate to mercenaries.

I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that I do not expect any official ever again to meet a private military firm without first seeking senior permission—and I will wish to know whenever such a permission is given—and without submitting a full written record. I am confident that those rules will make sure that we will not end up once again in the position when, quite frankly, officials were taken advantage of.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to criticisms in the Legg report of the high commissioner apparently failing to inform himself sufficiently of the ambit of the UK sanctions order in relation to Sierra Leone. Does he agree that it would have been fairer to the high commissioner had he not also made it clear that his Department had failed to convey to the high commissioner the complete terms of the UK sanctions order?

As I said to the House, there were misjudgments by officials in the African department and that is why they will be interviewed by the permanent secretary. One example was the failure to make sure that the information was properly available to the high commissioner. However, the terms of the resolution are routinely circulated to all posts. In this case, it is likely that there was a problem because of the unique circumstances in which our high commissioner to Sierra Leone was operating—he was not in the post at the time. There is a reason why information did not reach him. However, having considered the matter carefully, the Legg inquiry believed that there was fault on both sides. He should have been informed, but he should also have taken more trouble to make sure that he was informed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of all the statements that I have heard in the House about arms sanctions busting, this is the only case in which the end result was the restoration of a democratic Government, not keeping in power tyrannies that we have condemned many times. I do not condone mercenaries in any way—as my right hon. Friend said, Sandline's position was clearly much exaggerated—and I recognise the United Nations Security Council resolution, but is not this country's popularity in Sierra Leone based on the fact that we were associated with the democratic forces, not with those who overthrew a democratically elected Government?

President Kabbah—there could be no greater authority on the issue—has written at length to express his appreciation of the moral support, financial support and advice that he received from Britain during his period in exile. Throughout that exile, we were a close friend of President Kabbah and the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. We pursued that friendship in the United Nations, the Commonwealth and Conakry, where he was in exile. Now that he has been restored, Britain is foremost in leading the international effort to achieve civil reconstruction and an end to the fighting. We can all take some satisfaction from Britain's positive record in Sierra Leone. Now that the Legg inquiry's report has been published, I hope that that can be seen.

Would not the Foreign Secretary's statement have carried more authority if, instead of reciting the mantra about "systemic and cultural" deficiencies in his Department, he had outlined some of the specific examples of mismanagement by Foreign Office officials? Would we not have more confidence that things were going to get better in his Department if he were to say how, for example, the recruitment of more ethnic or female members of staff would have helped the resolution of the crisis, or why, given that Sandline personnel were instrumental in the efficacious distribution of food aid, he is so ready to apportion blame to specialist personnel on whose services Her Majesty's Government clearly had cause to call?

The hon. Gentleman talks about a mantra of "systemic and cultural" factors. Those words are quoted directly from the Legg report, which I hope that he will find time to study. I have presented the changes to the House clearly as a programme to modernise the Foreign Office and ensure that it is representative of modern Britain. I have a single figure number of women heads of mission out of 140-odd posts. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand why improving that gender balance should be part of a modern programme, I cannot help him any further.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that, in the light of the report, the attacks made on him and on the Foreign Office by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) can be seen to be

"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?

To pursue the quotation, they were a tale told by a right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe.

My hon. Friend makes his point well and with great literary knowledge. I shall not pursue him on that. I used to be a teacher of English and I would give him 100 per cent. for that effort.

Twice this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the Legg report, saying that the briefing provided to Ministers in advance of the Adjournment debate in March was seriously inadequate. Given that, does it not follow that—perhaps entirely inadvertently—Ministers misled the House? If that is so, should there not be a formal apology?

If the House was misled, of course there should be an apology. I have refreshed my memory by re-reading this morning what was said in the relevant passage by the Minister of State, and did not see any point at which he could have been accused of misleading the House. It is to his credit that he raised the issue in a debate in which nobody else raised it. I think that he should have had a full briefing on the allegations, although I should add that I would have been very distressed had he told the House that a Customs and Excise investigation was about to start. We are not going to get many convictions if we start to insist that Ministers should announce such investigations the moment they are set up.

I was in a minority of one on the Select Committee in arguing for the Committee to investigate the Sierra Leone affair following the publication of the Legg report. I argued that case in the interests of natural justice for those who were to be cross-examined by Sir Thomas Legg. The Foreign Secretary referred to officials needing to obtain permission before they engage in discussions and negotiations with representatives of private military companies. Should the process not be tougher than that? Should there not be a code of practice concerning dealings with these so-called private military companies? Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) get to the heart of the matter, when he said that there should be tougher supervision and regulation of groups of mercenaries that go under the rubric "private military companies"?

As I said, we will keep very much under review whether further supervision or regulation is required. I assure my hon. Friend that I have circulated written guidance—it goes under the rubric of "code of conduct"—that will require permission to be sought at head of Department level before any such contact takes place. Nobody should assume that, when sought, such a permission will automatically be given.

The report offers no criticism of Ministers, yet does the Foreign Secretary not understand that it should have done so—and for the following reason? Speaking as a former civil servant, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary understands that a strong culture throughout the civil service demands that civil servants direct their efforts towards full and accurate briefing of Ministers? Does he not understand that Ministers might not have received a full and accurate briefing, and, in pursuance of that, neglected or failed to give full, accurate and timely information to Parliament, because of the way in which he and other Ministers conducted themselves in the management of the Department? Before the Foreign Secretary casts out the mote in other's eyes, should he not see whether there is a beam in his own?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to bother to take the time to read the Legg report, he will find that the passage on briefing of Ministers is, perhaps, the longest in the report. If he looks at it, he will find that it is not consistent with his description of conventional practice. As for the rest of his comments, I would say only that the idea that I should have sent back the Legg report because it did not criticise me sufficiently has given me the best laugh of the day.

Am I misguided in being rather uneasy about the treatment of a letter to Peter Penfold? On 11 May, the Prime Minister was widely reported as going out of his way to praise Britain's high commissioner in Sierra Leone, Peter Penfold, who was accused of co-operating with a mercenary operation mounted by Sandline International. According to the Prime Minister, Mr. Penfold had done "a superb job" in dealing with the consequences of the military coup and in working closely with the President. How can a man who was told by his Prime Minister in May that he had done "a superb job" receive a career-ruining letter of rebuke—for that is what it is—and be required to attend an interview with the permanent secretary in July? What differed between May and July?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indeed said that Peter Penfold behaved as a hero during the original coup. In fairness to myself, I repeated that point in my statement when I said that Mr. Penfold showed great courage and commitment during that original coup and that he had since won high standing for Britain in Sierra Leone. He is entirely entitled to have that good record taken into account against the explicit findings of the Legg report on his contacts with Sandline. I announced to the House that I had taken that into account; that is why I do not intend to institute any formal proceedings against him. In the circumstances, a letter drawing the permanent secretary's attention to the report's findings is the least that could be done; indeed, I should expect the House to expect me to make him aware of what was said in the report.

Do not the "systemic and cultural" problems revealed by the report underline the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee was entirely correct to take a real interest in the matter? Is not the Foreign Secretary slightly concerned at the lack of intellectual curiosity displayed by senior members of his Department when difficult questions on Sierra Leone were asked in March and April? Does he regret that his decision to change the sanctions regime on arms exports was not highlighted in the report published by the Department of Trade and Industry on 1 July?

I plainly could not have expected the Department of Trade and Industry to highlight in its report of 1 July something that I am announcing in response to a report that I received on 24 July, but we shall be in contact with the DTI, with which we work closely on this matter, to ensure that everyone understands our new working procedures. I am not sure that I am entirely aware of the difficult questions that the hon. Gentleman says were raised in March. The Legg report certainly draws attention to the failure in February of senior management to act on information, but that is put in the context of what was then a major military engagement in Sierra Leone and of the substantial demand for humanitarian assistance, which management perhaps rightly regarded at the time as the more important priority.

May I again direct the Foreign Secretary's attention to the questions that I posed at the end of my response to his statement? He may not have heard them; he certainly made no attempt to answer them. Is he aware of the criticisms in paragraph 3.19 of the report that Ministers played down the fact that the coverage of the United Nations Security Council resolution was comprehensive? Does he appreciate that the report concludes that that playing down was deliberate, as Ministers knew that people on the ground were contemplating the use of force? Has he read paragraph 3.20, which, together with paragraph 3.19, specifically criticises the Minister of State and his answers to Parliament? Is he aware of the seriousness of those criticisms? Does he have any defence to them? If so, will he now say what it is?

The most obvious defence to paragraph 3.20 is that it does not refer to my hon. Friend the Minister of State—[Interruption.] I am merely reading the paragraph to which, after six hours of research, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has directed me. If the most damaging paragraph that he could find was one that contained no reference to my hon. Friend, perhaps I should have given him 12 hours to demonstrate how clean the report was.

On paragraph 3.19, much of the presentation was indeed that the UN resolution was aimed at the military junta. In that, the statements were entirely correct—the embargo applied to the junta. It did not apply only to the junta, however, and we shall take on board the recommendation that we ensure that all press lines give the full legal position. In defence of the news department and my officials, I should say that someone in the outside world who took a news line as an authoritative statement of the legal position would be very odd.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept points of order until we have heard all the statements. I will take points of order after the next statement.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on immigration and asylum.

I am today publishing a White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum", following a wide-ranging examination undertaken as part of the comprehensive spending review.

Governments have few more complex and sensitive responsibilities, yet the system has been subject to piecemeal and ill considered changes that have failed to tackle the real problems. Indeed, the changes have often made the problems worse. The arrangements for supporting asylum seekers are a shambles: huge backlogs have been allowed to develop, and additional complexity and regulation have made the system unwieldy to operate.

Despite the dedication and professionalism of immigration staff at all levels, genuine applicants have suffered, while abusive claimants and racketeers have exploited delays in the system. It is time for a new approach. The Government are determined to maintain firm control over immigration, but to do so in a way that meets our international obligations and our commitment to strengthening human rights.

The volume of passenger traffic arriving at our ports of entry has grown very fast in recent years, from 55 million arrivals in 1992–93 to 80 million in 1997–98, and it is projected to reach nearly 100 million passengers in only two years' time. We want to welcome genuine visitors to our shores, and to provide them, and British citizens who travel abroad, with a fast and efficient service.

Our immigration policy will continue to support family life by admitting the spouses and minor dependent children of those already settled in the United Kingdom. It must also sustain and promote racial equality. It is particularly important for us to acknowledge the huge contribution that immigrants and their descendants have made to our society in all walks of life.

The Government have already begun to put in place a fairer and more efficient system. Last June, as promised in our manifesto, we abolished the primary purpose rule; but fairness is not well served by a system of decision making that labours under huge backlogs and outdated methods of working. The White Paper sets out our plans for an integrated approach to the modernisation of immigration control. We are making organisational changes in the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office, backed by new technology, which will result in a new integrated casework directorate.

We also intend to integrate the overseas entry clearance operation with the other elements of control. A core feature of the new approach will be a single management structure, drawn from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, to manage the overseas operation. We will use new technology and more flexible legislative provisions to the best advantage.

Many people resident in this country want their relatives to visit them for important family and other occasions. In our view, the previous Government were wrong to remove the right of appeal to those refused a visit visa in such circumstances. Such a right of appeal provided an element of independent oversight of what are bound to be very difficult and often emotive decisions.

Honouring our manifesto commitment, we propose to introduce a streamlined right of appeal for those refused a visa to visit a family member in this country. We also intend to test a financial bond scheme for visitors, as has been urged upon us by many groups representing, in particular, those from the Indian sub-continent.

Many problems and much confusion are caused by passengers arriving in the United Kingdom without the required visas, or in some cases without any passport. We shall adopt a tough approach to deterring and preventing the arrival of such inadequately documented passengers. One of the best ways to achieve that is through the use of airline liaison officers. We already have five officers placed overseas working with carriers and the relevant authorities to combat document and other frauds. We intend to increase that network to about 20 officers in total.

Fundamental to our overall strategy is the need to speed up the system. There are too many avenues of appeal, so in future there will be a single right of appeal for those lawfully present in the United Kingdom at the time of their application. We recently published a consultation document on that. The aim is to create an appeals system that will provide a fair opportunity to review decisions, but to do so quickly, and to minimise the scope for manipulation of the system.

In our manifesto, we said that we would "control unscrupulous immigration advisers". As many hon. Members from both sides of the House know from their constituency casework, a significant minority of such advisers abuse the system and exploit their clients. We have consulted widely about that, and will introduce a statutory scheme to regulate immigration advisers, which may include those who are legally qualified.

The United Kingdom has long given shelter to those fleeing persecution from other parts of the world. We will continue scrupulously to observe our international obligations to protect genuine refugees. Those who are accepted as refugees or given exceptional leave to remain should be helped to integrate into local communities. To aid that integration, we will reduce to four years the qualifying period for settlement for asylum applicants granted exceptional leave to remain, and give immediate settlement to those recognised as refugees.

The number seeking asylum has increased eightfold in the past 10 years, from 4,000 to 34,000. The reasons for that are many, including political instability, but there is no doubt that the asylum system is being abused.

Around three quarters of asylum applications are refused outright because they meet the requirements neither for refugee status nor for exceptional leave to remain. The vast majority of such failed applicants appeal, but only 6 per cent. of the appeals are successful. Of course, a failed asylum application does not necessarily mean that the applicant has abused the system, but many claims for asylum are made by those seeking to migrate for purely economic reasons, or as a means of prolonging a stay in the United Kingdom without legitimate reason.

That places substantial pressure on a system that is already under severe strain, and it is unfair to genuine refugees who have to wait long periods in the system for a decision on their claim to refugee status. At the end of May this year, there was a backlog of 52,000 asylum applications on which not even an initial decision had been taken. Of those applications, 10,000 were more than five years old. On the same date, a backlog of 32,000 immigration appeals were waiting to be heard, of which more than 70 per cent. were asylum cases.

Modernising the controls and simplifying and speeding up the procedures will help to tackle those problems. However, we cannot create the faster system that we all want without clearing existing backlogs. We are strengthening immigration control, and there will be no amnesty, either now or in the future, for any applicant. We will instead allocate additional resources to deal with that inheritance. We will also adopt a practical approach to the application backlog when an initial decision has been outstanding for some years, and we will ensure that the effect of long delays is properly taken into account, but in ways that will not outweigh other factors such as serious abuse.

The package of measures that I am announcing today will ensure that new applicants can be dealt with more quickly. As part of that process of strengthening our control, I am announcing that, from today, the period allowed for asylum seekers to submit further representations after interview will be reduced from 28 days to five days in port cases. It is already five days for in-country applicants. No one intent on exploiting the system should be under any illusion that those measures to clear the backlog will benefit them.

We shall take further enforcement measures to ensure that asylum seekers who are refused leave to enter or remain are returned quickly to their countries of origin. We have previously undertaken special exercises to tackle sudden increases in applicants, and we will not hesitate to do so again. All told, we aim by 2001 to have average process times for initial asylum decisions of two months, and for appeals of a further four months.

We shall not hesitate to use detention where necessary to ensure the integrity of immigration control. We have, however, decided that detainees should be given written reasons for their detention, and that, subject to legislation, there will be judicial oversight of the process.

The current support arrangements for asylum seekers are a shambles. They are the product of ill-considered legislation that later required the intervention of the courts. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 imposed a burden on local authority social services departments that was unplanned for and inappropriate. It cannot be allowed to continue. Action must be taken to contain costs and to relieve the burden that has fallen heavily on London authorities in particular, and more recently on the local authorities of Dover and Kent.

In opposition, I said that, in a civilised society, genuine asylum seekers could not be left destitute, and I am honouring that commitment today. We need a system that reduces the incentive to economic migration, and recognises that the genuine asylum seeker needs food and shelter, not a girocheque.

Support on the basis that I have outlined will therefore be separated from the main social security benefits system, and will principally be provided in kind, not in cash. Where accommodation is needed, it will normally be provided directly, with no choice about location. We will also consider the extent to which support for food and other basic needs can be provided by vouchers or other non-cash means. In general, support will not extend beyond the point at which the application has been decided and all appeal rights have been exhausted.

That support will require new national machinery to plan and co-ordinate provision. There will be a single budget for asylum seeker support costs, which will be managed by the Home Office alongside the costs of the process for considering asylum cases. That will enable more flexible use of resources to reduce overall costs. New central machinery will also be created under Home Office management, to contract with a range of providers to obtain accommodation. They will include the private sector, voluntary bodies, housing associations and local authorities.

The intention is to develop a national approach making use of support from existing communities and voluntary groups, and to relieve over-concentration on London and one or two other areas, which is creating such severe problems in those areas. The Government will consult widely on the details, and on transitional arrangements. In taking this work forward, we will ensure that the needs of children, whether unaccompanied or members of families, are fully protected.

The Government are committed to promoting a more positive view of citizenship that both reflects and celebrates the multicultural, multiracial society that we have become. We will take action to reduce waiting times for processing applications for British citizenship to give a more welcoming signal to prospective citizens.

The measures described in the White Paper provide a much clearer framework for what our immigration control should be. They should also provide the staff of the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office with a workable system. Bureaucracy, over-complexity, delays and backlogs often frustrate the best efforts of staff to give effect to the law and to the policies of Parliament and Ministers. Despite those difficulties, staff in the directorate have consistently achieved impressive results, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work. A clear framework and better tools for the job will enable everyone to take a fresh and more purposeful view of what they can and should achieve.

The White Paper sets out a comprehensive and integrated strategy for immigration control. It tackles the failings of the current system, and addresses the challenges that we will face in future. The Government will introduce legislation to implement the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. The legislation may be a good candidate for consideration by a Special Standing Committee. Britain requires an immigration and asylum system appropriate to the demands of the 21st century. The system in place is simply not up to the job. We need radical change to deliver a modern and efficient system that is fairer, faster and firmer. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Our general attitude is that strict immigration control is necessary to good race relations. We shall back any measures to improve race relations and to create full equality of opportunity. We shall also back any effective measures to prevent illegal immigration. In far too many cases, applications for political asylum are a means to evade immigration control. As the Home Secretary and the White Paper say, three quarters of asylum applications are refused because they do not meet the requirements of either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. Only 6 per cent. of appeals are successful.

Even at that, however, the Home Secretary plans to spend almost £1 billion over the next three years on support of asylum seekers. That is almost four times what he plans to spend on his new crime programme, and it is almost as much as total extra spending on the police during the same period. It must be sensible to reduce that bill radically, and to divert the money to better purposes.

Does the Home Secretary feel on reflection that the position in the United Kingdom would have been substantially improved if the Labour party had not with great ferocity opposed our Bills in 1993 and 1996? Does he recall that the Prime Minister, then shadow Home Secretary, played down the seriousness of the issue because of a temporary fall in applications?

If not, the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember that, when he was shadow Home Secretary, he opposed us when we proposed benefit withdrawal. He did not say that our changes were insufficient, as he appears to argue now. He said then that they were far too stringent. We shall support his changes to the benefit system, but we know that, if the Conservative Government had proposed them, Labour spokesmen would have toured the country condemning them. We are not prepared to take lectures from the Home Secretary or the Labour party on effective immigration control, because they opposed virtually all our measures to tackle abuse.

The White Paper is important enough to require a full day's debate, and I hope that the Government will arrange one. For now, I have three sets of questions. First, much of our immigration control system depends on border controls, to which we are committed, and to which we hope the Government are committed.

The Home Secretary has referred to the vast increase in passenger traffic to 100 million passengers in two years time. He is giving immigration officers more power, but is he satisfied that there are enough of them to police our borders effectively? He also intends to introduce a new right of appeal for visitors. Is there a danger that that will put more pressure on the appeals system, just when he is trying to reduce pressure?

Secondly, the Home Secretary abolished the primary purpose rule last year. Previously, applicants had to prove that gaining entry to the United Kingdom was not the primary purpose of their marriage. The latest Home Office figures show a significant increase in applications from spouses. Does that trend continue into 1998? Will he give us the latest figures?

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Home Secretary has said that there will be no amnesty for political asylum applicants because of the time that they have been waiting. However, the statement was less than forthcoming, compared with the White Paper, on the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.

Will there not now be two special provisions for asylum applicants? Ten thousand people who have been waiting since before July 1993 will now normally be given indefinite leave to remain. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the position? In addition, 20,000 people who made applications between mid-1993 and the beginning of 1996 will also be considered under special criteria not available generally. They will have been waiting not seven or five years, but two and a half or three years.

Will the Home Secretary explain the detail of that second scheme, which affects so many people? Does it not mean that 30,000 of the 50,000 people waiting for initial decision will be considered under special criteria not available generally, and that, certainly with one group, settlement will be the normal, almost automatic, outcome, when he has said that the average of false applications is very high? That is the background against which the policy is set. For all those reasons, the Opposition will want to examine those two schemes in particular with great care.

We have heard the Home Secretary's words. We want to monitor carefully the effect of what he has announced. We fear that his plans in action may not match up to the words that he has used this afternoon.

The right hon. Gentleman asks for a full day's debate on this important White Paper. I would welcome that, but it is a matter for business managers. I will pass on his request to them.

The right hon. Gentleman made some curious assertions, given the record of the previous Administration. He first complained that the costs of asylum support given on the last page of the White Paper are likely to add up to £1 billion over the next three years. That is simple arithmetic, but had we not taken the costs in hand, our inheritance meant that the figures would have risen to about £800 million in a single year. Anything up to £2 billion could have been wasted on support of applicants and those awaiting removal and deportation in a system that was a shambles from beginning to end. That was the system we found when we came into office.

I have read the debates in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I took part in 1992–93 and 1995–96. One reason that we opposed those measures was that we said that they would not deliver the changes—[Laughter.] Oh, yes we did. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, once a distinguished position—the jury is still out on whether it is still distinguished—said:

"No one on the Opposition Benches condones bogus applications for asylum: everyone condemns them. However, weeding out false claims should not be at the expense of prejudicing genuine claims, and that is our fear about the Bill."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 36.]

The effect of that, and the 1996 Bill, was to create the worst of all possible worlds, in which genuine asylum seekers were left in limbo for years while their applications were considered, while the very delays that the Bills had established enabled bogus asylum seekers to come, claim benefit, work and carry on ripping off the system.

Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's explicit questions. On border controls, he asked whether there will be enough immigration staff. Again, this is an area that he should have researched more. The staff numbers in the immigration service were to have been cut and cut again under the spending plans that we inherited. We are arranging over the next three years to put an extra £124 million into immigration and asylum control. We have put some more money in already precisely to deal with the rising number of visitors and the overhang of asylum applications.

The right hon. Gentleman made a serious point about whether the new right of appeal for visitors refused a visit for family purposes could put pressure on the appeal system as a whole. We do not intend that it should. It will be a separate, self-contained, streamlined system. As we make clear in the White Paper, it will be a system whose costs will be paid by the applicants.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the numbers who have applied for settlement as spouses following the ending of the primary purpose rule on 5 July last year. He is right to say that numbers have increased. That was bound to be the case, because there was a huge logjam. The Opposition, under the previous shadow Home Secretary, now the shadow Foreign Secretary, had every opportunity to oppose the abolition of the primary purpose rule and make a prayer in this House to negate my changing the rules. They did not, and the decision had the surprising vocal support of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He and many other Conservative Members recognised the injustice of the rule, and the fact that it offered no serious means of control.

The right hon. Gentleman's last point concerned our proposals for dealing with the backlog, which are set out in full in paragraphs 8.29 and 8.30 on page 41 of the White Paper. For those who made initial applications before 1 June 1993 that have still not had an initial decision, we are saying that delay in itself will normally be considered so serious as to justify as a matter of fairness the grant of indefinite leave to remain.

That will not apply to applicants whose presence is not conducive to the public good or to applications for asylum made after the commencement of removal or deportation cases. For those who made applications between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995, the delays will be weighed in the balance in each case against their current circumstances.

Let me make this clear to right hon. Gentleman. Again, he has come to his position without the benefit of even looking at the asylum statistics for 1997. The previous Administration faced a huge backlog. The figures show that the number granted exceptional leave to remain in 1992–93 shot up suddenly from 2,000 to 15,000 in 1992, and to 11,000 in 1993. Their policy for dealing with the backlog was much less discriminating than ours. The policy was entirely secret. It never surfaced publicly, and was never disclosed to the House. It became apparent only when the statistics were published much in retard.

rose—

Order. That initial exchange took precisely 28 minutes. I ask Back Benchers for direct questions and the Secretary of State for brisk answers. This is not a debate, but a question and answer session.

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement, and especially his determination to deal with the backlog and his proposals on visitors' visas, which are a significant development. When does he propose to put in place the framework for dealing with unscrupulous immigration advisers? Many hon. Members have constituents who have been advised by these miserable people, who have given false information and advice that has added to the backlog.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the proposals. The requirements relating to unscrupulous immigration advisers will depend on legislation that we shall bring before the House as quickly as possible.

The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures that the Home Secretary has announced, because we share the Government's commitment to sort out some of the mess left by the previous Government, especially the 1996 Act. We welcome the fact that this problem is being dealt with early in the Parliament rather than close to a general election, as happened with the 1996 Act.

I have a few brisk questions to ask the Home Secretary on the criteria that he has set himself for developing a faster, fairer and firmer system. If the system is to be faster, will he confirm that the extra money will reverse the staff cuts proposed at Croydon, which amount to several hundred over the next couple of years? Will he be able to get the computer system, which is already several months behind schedule, into play more quickly?

If the system is to be fairer, will the Home Secretary consider, in addition to help in kind, making small cash payments to asylum seekers to cover small costs such as travel and telephone calls? Will he ensure that asylum seekers are not clustered into hostels, which could become targets for racial abuse—a problem that we have seen in other countries? If the system is to be firmer, will he look again at immigration service officers' extended powers and consider keeping the police in place for that purpose? Immigration officers have expressed concern about their ability to deal with the extended powers.

Finally, will the Home Secretary confirm that all detainees will have the right to a bail hearing, and say whether they will be legally supported when they go to such hearings?

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will reverse the staff cuts. The answer is yes. We inherited the computer system—such matters cuts across all Governments at all times—and it is behind schedule—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is muttering something from a sedentary position.

Order.

The computer system that we inherited was put in place to develop a casework programme. It is behind schedule, and we are hoping to bring it nearer schedule. I understand the case for making small cash payments available to asylum seekers within the overall regime of providing benefits in kind, and we shall consult on that. We considered whether we should direct people to hostels, as happens in a number of other countries, but we accept the strong arguments against doing so. The hon. Gentleman, among others, has adumbrated the reasons against it.

A judicial oversight of the detention system will apply to virtually all detainees. Those who are detained for a very short time—overnight, for example—will not be covered, but nobody seriously suggests that they should be. With respect to immigration officers' powers, I strongly believe that giving immigration officers proper powers and training will greatly assist them in their job, and release pressures on the police.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the patience and tolerance that my constituents have shown over the past 12 months, when large numbers of east European people seeking asylum arrived in the port of Dover and settled in Dover? Is he aware that there have been serious social tensions recently because of the concentration of those asylum seekers, and the fact that an inordinate cost has been imposed on Dover district council, Kent county council and the local police force in seeking to manage those difficulties?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing such a balanced White Paper, which meets all the main concerns of my constituents and will receive their support.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I applaud the tolerance of the people of Dover and other ports in Kent in putting up with such a serious abuse of our system of immigration and asylum control. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued the matter. We seek to remove the unacceptable burdens on areas such as his and a number of inner-London boroughs.

Any proposals to reduce the asylum backlog should be welcomed because it is costly and delays genuine applications, and they should be given fair consideration in the House. However, does the Home Secretary accept that the use of "exceptional leave to remain" as an administrative device to shorten the queue does not amount to improved control, as was shown in the late 1980s? If more money is to be spent on in-country enforcement, will the Home Secretary ensure that port-of-entry controls remain as strong as ever? Finally, where will the streamline right of appeal take place when visitor visas are refused?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for our proposals. Given his considerable experience as a former Immigration Minister in the Home Office, he will accept that the key to improving enforcement is to reduce delays—it is the delays that have been so exploited. The prospect of cash payments and the absence of direction on where benefits in kind could be taken led to a huge burst of economic migrants, for example, from eastern Europe. We are wholly committed to maintaining effective border controls, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was successful in writing into the Amsterdam treaty legal protection for our border controls, which were at risk under the Maastricht treaty.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about visit visa appeals, the control of advisers, and dealing with the backlog. However, will he look again at support for asylum seekers? Although we all accept that local authorities should not carry the burden, we have learnt in the past year or two that there are problems with benefits in kind. If it is coupled with a policy of dispersal, as the White Paper appears to suggest, we might be setting up a complex and bureaucratic system that will not deliver easily. The real issue is to get decisions taken quickly, because, if anything will deter abusive claimants, it is quick and efficient decision taking.

I forgot to answer a question raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) about where visitor appeals would take place. The prospective visitor would obviously have to stay in the country in which the application was made, and the appeal would almost certainly be heard here, on the papers. However, we are consulting on that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for his overall welcome. He asked about benefits in kind. We discussed that matter in great detail, particularly whether we should have a combined system of benefits in cash and benefits in kind, and where the cut-off point should be. In the end, we judged that the only way to run an effective system was by paying benefits in kind, because that would not deter genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and want shelter, food and accommodation in this country, but it would deter economic migrants.

There are two issues. First, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the system must be speeded up—that is key. Secondly, we must ensure that the rest of the system does not act as a pull on economic migrants who have no basis for making a claim under the 1951 convention.

I thank the Home Secretary for his comments about a visitor right of appeal, and the proposal for a register of advisers. He will know that the Immigration Advisory Service, which I founded, has long campaigned for those. Does he accept that tens of thousands of those who lose their appeals, right the way through the system, then go to ground and are never heard of again because there is no system whereby they can be retrieved and removed from the country? Does he think that that problem will get worse or better, and does he recognise that it is a major problem?

It is a major problem, and it is made much worse by the fact that people can exercise multiple rights of appeal and, because the immigration appeal tribunal is not currently a court of record, far too many applications for judicial review are approved by the judge dealing with the Crown Office list, even if they are later rejected on the merits of the case. As the hon. Gentleman said, applicants then go to ground partly because adjudicators may take many months to produce their adjudication.

We are taking a number of steps, which are set out in the White Paper, greatly to improve enforcement. We are ready to increase the use of detention at the point of removal if necessary so that we can toughen the system up. The point of having a single right of appeal is that it will not only deal with the merits of the application but impose removal directions.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement in general, but make two specific points? The Home Secretary has already made it clear that there will be a right of appeal and a charge for visitors. What will the charge be, and does he intend to cover the cost of the appeal system through a charge on visitors who appeal?

My second point relates to asylum seekers. My right hon. Friend appears to have made quite clear the position for those who have made an application prior to June 1993 and who have not yet received a decision on their application, but the post-June 1993 position still seems to be a bit cloudy. Can he say what sort of criteria he will use to decide whether people can stay or have to leave the United Kingdom?

On the question of visitor's rights of appeal, it is intended that the fees charged to all family visitor applicants, plus a specific charge where a right of appeal is exercised, should together cover the cost of running the appeal system. There is an issue of balance between the initial charge and the appeal charge, but we are looking at a cost of a right of appeal of about £200 to £250.

The criteria for dealing with those who are in the application backlog, no decision having been made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995, are set out in paragraph 8.30 of the White Paper.

I have not seen the White Paper yet.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not yet had a chance to read it. It states:

"delay will not normally of itself justify the grant of leave to enter or remain… but in individual cases will be weighed up with other considerations and, if there are specific compassionate or other exceptional factors present which are linked to the delay… a decision to grant limited leave to enter or remain may then be justified."

First, may I express my appreciation for those of the Home Secretary's measures that will reduce the burden on Hillingdon borough council and other London borough councils, which have in the past borne an inordinate share of the cost of supporting asylum seekers? However, may I express anxiety at the fact that he and the Government have not yet fully addressed the control of would-be asylum seekers from overseas?

The right hon. Gentleman has not managed to impose a charge on French railways for the carriage of would-be refugees without the appropriate visa through the channel tunnel; nor has he changed the terms of the Dublin convention that allow other European Union countries to pass on to the United Kingdom asylum seekers they ought properly to deal with themselves and return to their country of origin.

I am one of the world's few experts on the problems of imposing carrier's liability on the French railways. I regret to say that that goes back to defects in the Sangatte protocol, which laid the ground—sorry, the underground—for the channel tunnel, and there are major legal problems. The French Minister of the Interior, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, has been very co-operative in ensuring that far better checks are imposed by the French border police, DICCILEC, than was previously the case. Although that is not as good as the imposition of carrier's liability, which I was able to achieve in respect of the Brussels end of Eurostar, it is a great deal better than was previously the case.

The Dublin convention is not a satisfactory international European treaty. It was signed, I think in their sleep, by Ministers whom the hon. Gentleman technically supported, in 1990. I have succeeded in changing its application. One of the important triumphs of the justice and home affairs presidency of the United Kingdom—I was the president of the Justice and Home Affairs Council during that period—was to have an article 18 committee meeting on 27 May, which laid down new and better interpretations of the Dublin convention. However, the convention is far from satisfactory, and would that it had never been signed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he introduces welcome and long-overdue legislation to regulate immigration advisers, legally qualified individuals will come under that legislation? Regrettably, solicitors are often the worst transgressors in giving out bogus immigration advice.

We have not yet made a final decision, but I note entirely my hon. Friend's comments. There is no question but that some solicitors and others who are legally qualified are the worst perpetrators of fraud on innocent applicants and abusers of the system.

It is now nearly a year since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I visited the Home Office to warn in person of the dangers of a tide of economic migrants from eastern Europe. Since then, that tide has continued, and has embraced Albania and Czechoslovakia.

The Home Secretary referred to flaws in the Dublin convention, which we accept, but what my constituents cannot understand is why, at the very least, the Government are not and have not been able for the past year to say simply that, if people arriving in this country have travelled right across Europe, through France, Germany and Belgium, we shall immediately determine that they cannot possibly be asylum seekers, and return them to their country of origin. What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman makes a literally incredible point. It was his Government, whom he supported, who signed the Dublin convention. Of course it is preposterous that people should be able to travel across perfectly safe countries in western Europe and to arrive at our door and that we find huge difficulty in getting them accepted by the countries that should have entertained their asylum application in the first place.

Why can we not send them back to the country of origin?

The hon. Gentleman says that we should send them back, but we have to observe international conventions and international law, and it was his Government who signed the ludicrous Dublin convention, which, in many cases, has made the situation very much worse. We have been working to ensure that the Dublin convention at least works better than it worked before. If he wants to explain to his constituents why those people are arriving on our shores, he will have to have the courage to say, "I am responsible, along with the shambolic Administration whom I supported over many years."

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having had a good hard think about these extremely difficult issues, but will he consider the risks of going for benefit in kind, instead of restoring benefit rights to asylum seekers? What is the wisdom of the Home Office running its own social security department for asylum seekers? Is there not a danger of asylum seekers facing a squeeze from right wingers and racists saying that they are living like lords on the Home Office, whereas, in reality, they face bureaucracy, indignity and perhaps abject poverty? How is benefit in kind going to work?

We have considered the matter in great detail. We are committed to making sure that no genuine asylum seeker is left destitute. There is no doubt that, while genuine asylum seekers are happy to be provided with shelter and accommodation in kind, the prospect of a cash benefit acts as a major pull for economic migrants who have no basis whatsoever for settlement in this country under the 1951 convention.

It is perfectly right that the provision of hardship relief in kind for asylum seekers should be separated from the social security system. The social security system is there to provide benefits to people who are entitled to be resident in this country on a permanent basis, but we were about to get into a position where returning residents who had every right of settlement here were treated less well under the social security system than were asylum seekers. That is not acceptable.

We understand that there will be no amnesty, and that there will instead be realistic decisions about removability. Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if he makes sensitive and fair judgments on that, he will be judged against common humanity and supported by hon. Members on these Benches, rather than judged by Daily Mail editorials, talk of "floods", and "send them home" comments from Tory Members?

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who know detention centres locally can still see no reason why they should not be Home Office establishments, instead of privately run establishments? Because of the problems that there have been at detention centres, we look forward to a reduction in the number of places, not an expansion.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on that last point, but the truth is that there are many more people who ought to be detained than can be detained. That picks up on a point raised earlier by an Opposition Member about the number of people who go to ground when, finally, removal directions are put down. However, as is made clear in the chapter on detention in the White Paper, paragraph 12.15, we intend that there should be proper statutory rules for all detention centres, whether run directly by the Home Office or by contractors.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the time scale in which we will be able to deal with those people who have waited an unacceptably long time—a problem that we inherited from the previous Government? Is he absolutely certain that, under the measures that he has announced, no new waiting lists will build up so that people will still have to wait for an unacceptable time?

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not had a chance to read the relevant chapter—chapter 8—of the White Paper. It sets out in detail how we intend to proceed with those cases. We intend to proceed as quickly as possible, but the nature of the system is such that it will take a lot longer than people would like.

My hon. Friend asked me whether I am absolutely certain that the changes will improve matters. I am probably certain, but we live in a world of human frailty and potential error. I shall work my socks off, as will my colleagues and officials, to ensure that the measures work. However, there is no more absolute certainty in this matter than there is in Burnley or Blackburn Rovers winning the next FA cup.

I support the Home Secretary's words—which are in stark contrast to his party's attitude when in opposition—and the abolition of the primary purpose rule. To put the problem in context, will the Home Secretary confirm that about 250,000 people have applied for asylum in this country in the past 10 years, of whom 10,700 have been given asylum and 13,000 have been deported, leaving 226,300 people whose cases have not been satisfactorily resolved? If, on average, 6 per cent. of appeals are granted, what is the Home Secretary's intention regarding the other 94 per cent. and what will be his performance?

The figures are set out in the Home Office statistical bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. We must add to the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the number of people formally granted asylum—the number of those granted exceptional leave to remain under the previous Administration and this Administration, and it is entirely right that that should be the case. Only a small proportion of those who seek asylum are granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, and the rest fall to be removed from this country, since there is no basis for them to be here.

We want far fewer people whose position is unfounded under the 1951 convention to make applications in the first place. We shall be able to achieve that through the combination of measures that we are taking. However, we want swifter appeals—within six months, on average—for people whose applications are refused, with the appeal setting the removal directions and, in normal circumstances, administrative removal following quickly thereafter.

We all have constituents who are prepared to put up money or offer security so that their relatives can enter the country with a promise that they will return. I was interested in what the Home Secretary said about testing a new financial bond. How would that work?

The details of that scheme are set out in paragraphs 5.11 and 5.12 on page 24 of the White Paper. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not had a chance to read it. He is absolutely right to say that his constituents and those of myself and other hon. Members have made many representations for a bond scheme. We are consulting on that and will take into account the views of hon. Members as well as those of organisations representing people from, for example, south Asia, before finalising its details.

Will the Home Secretary comment on how many people have been misled by illegal advice and how many have acted out of frustration and used illegal methods to enter the country because of their treatment by entry clearance officers, who have made them wait for a long time after their long journeys before interviewing them and then turning them away? Are measures being taken to tighten up the work of the entry clearance officers and achieve speedier judgments?

Following the question by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has any assessment been made of those who are currently considered illegal entrants who are self-supporting and not a drain on the economy, some of whom are seeking medical attention?

If people are seeking medical attention, they are self-supporting and it is clear that they will return after receiving medical attention, normally they are admitted. The principal issue for visitors is whether they will return at the end of the relevant period. Entry clearance officers in posts abroad have to be very firm in their assessment of applications, because people enter as visitors, and, with increasing regularity, abuse immigration control and their right to stay here by inventing an application for asylum. We aim to deter that.

We aim greatly to improve the administration of the entry clearance system in posts abroad by putting it under the direction of a combined Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office operation, so that there will be much better co-ordination between the two Departments than hitherto.

I think that the hon. Gentleman was asking me about the total number of people who are illegally here. By definition, we cannot know that, but we know that the immigration and nationality directorate is detecting an increasing number of people who come here wholly illegally.

I thank the Home Secretary for removing the burden on local authorities of paying for the cost of asylum seekers and their residence. Will he think again about the principle of the Home Office setting up a benefits system, its likely high costs—which some of my hon. Friends have pointed out—and the unfortunate principle of paying benefits in kind rather than in cash? Would it not be cheaper to reintroduce the benefits to asylum seekers that were so callously taken away by the previous Government?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that immigration officers apparently will be given powers of arrest and removal from people's property, which they do not have at present? Does he think that that is wise?

On the latter point, immigration officers already have powers of arrest, but their corresponding powers are very unsatisfactory. Others apart from police officers have powers of arrest—customs officers have such powers—but they are subject in full to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which works satisfactorily. It is far better in principle for such work to be done by immigration officers with proper training, supported in appropriate cases by properly trained police officers.

The practice of local authorities providing benefits in kind rather than in cash has worked satisfactorily for individual applicants. The London boroughs and social services departments for ports in Kent and elsewhere have provided satisfactory, humane and sufficient systems of support in kind for applicants. The problem is that the provision of those benefits has been disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a very few boroughs. It is unreasonable for those localities to bear that burden. For that reason, the burden must be taken on nationally.

I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about payments of benefits in cash. They will not solve the problem of ensuring that genuine asylum seekers do not remain destitute, but they will provide an opportunity for fraud, and economic migrants would view them as a pull factor to come to this country.

Is there not a danger that the measures on asylum seekers that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing will simply be undermined by his actions on the primary purpose rule? What message does he have for an elderly, disabled constituent of mine who was grossly exploited even under the old arrangements? What steps will he take to monitor the growth in applications that will occur under the new category and the leakage of people seeking to overstay, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, will also increase under the new category?

I am afraid that I have lost the thread, because the question was a little confused.

The primary purpose rule.

The primary purpose rule has nothing whatever to do with asylum. Moreover, people who are granted entry to this country as spouses or fiances are not given temporary permission to stay. Initially, they are given permission to stay for 12 months, and if the marriage is shown to be working, they are given leave to remain for a further four years, and they are then allowed to settle in this country. That has nothing to do with the matter before the House.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman only that many of us witnessed the operation of the primary purpose rule—it was not only unfair but unworkable. It hurt only the innocent, and did not deter or detect those coming to Britain for bogus marriages, because it was an unjusticiable rule. That fact was recognised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Although he had done nothing to remove the primary purpose rule while in government, when in opposition he decided not to oppose its removal.

My constituents will be grateful for many aspects of the Home Secretary's statement, particularly the new arrangements for visitors, but two things deeply concern me. One is the fact that people will get only one choice of where they go to live. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will not seek to place asylum seekers in rural areas where there are no people who speak the same language, or no people with whom they have any connection, because that may lead to children in schools being seriously discriminated against, and cause extra stress to people seeking asylum?

My other concern is my right hon. Friend's statement about a right of appeal. He said that there would be a single appeal for those "lawfully present" at the time of application. I think that the arguments for a single appeal are overwhelming, but if the only people who get an appeal are those who are lawfully present at the time of application, in effect any appeal against deportation or removal has been withdrawn. That means that the circumstances of people whose lives depend on the immigrant or asylum seeker cannot be taken into account. For many women in my constituency, if appeals against deportation are not retained in some form, it will cause real hardship.

We are providing only one choice. It would be wrong to provide greater housing choice for people who have come into this country than we provide, under legislation that we have supported, for the homeless who are resident and citizens here. People who are homeless have only one opportunity in relation to housing provision by a local authority. If they refuse that, they have made themselves intentionally homeless. I do not think it unreasonable to apply the same rules to asylum seekers.

It will be for the central agency to be as sensitive as possible about where individuals are placed, but let us make it clear that we intend that this power should be used to relieve the burden on some London boroughs, Dover and other ports in the south. That may mean that asylum seekers have to go to areas that they would otherwise not wish to go to, but, if they are genuine asylum seekers, seeking refuge from persecution by their country of origin, they will not mind that.

As to appeals, we are proposing that there should be a single appeal—let me make that clear. The single appeal will deal with all matters, including removal directions and, if necessary, deportation as well. If there are any compassionate circumstances, they can be raised at that time. What we are not having is people abusing the system by putting in appeal after appeal, which is one of the reasons we face the shambles that we do.