---

Column 357

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Rost, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Ryder, Richard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, Sir William

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Michael

Sims, Roger

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Squire, Robin

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Wallace, James

Waller, Gary

Walters, Sir Dennis

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Wigley, Dafydd

Wilkinson, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

Applications for asylum

The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in respect of any person who, by virtue of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, may be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30th June 1997.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As I said in Committee, I doubt whether we would be discussing the Bill were it not for the appalling events in Tiananmen square last year, not because there would not have been problems and uncertainties about what will happen in Hong Kong after 1997 but because there is no doubt that the events that we saw on television last year shocked people around the world and understandably led people inside China and Hong Kong to fear for their lives, or at least their safety, if the regime in China is the same after the handing over of the colony in 1997.

It is all the more surprising that the Bill makes no special provision for those who seek what I might loosely call asylum. We are told that it deals with the special circumstances of Hong Kong, which I understand, but I should have thought that the Government would make some provision to deal with the special circumstances of those who fear persecution or fear for their lives--the usual criteria that are considered for asylum.

---

Column 358

Instead, we are told that the individuals concerned will have to use the normal system for considering applications for asylum, even though it is common ground that there are special circumstances in Hong Kong.

That is where the problems start. Anyone who has had the slightest contact with the asylum system that we operate will know that our reputation of being a haven for those who fear for their lives can at times be tarnished by the way in which we operate the asylum regime. One has only to consider the case of the 33 people from China who are currently in this country to see one of the difficulties that they face.

If individuals on the way to this country make the mistake of landing in a third country, the Government's attitude--they would pray in aid the United Nations convention--is that they must make their applications for asylum in that third country. That can be difficult, because the third country may not have the recognised systems and recognised rule of law and due process of law that we have in this country. It could be a country where, to put it bluntly, the system for dealing with asylum may be rudimentary.

In terms of the United Nations convention, the Government are entitled to say, "We are not prepared to entertain your applications for asylum. You must go to a third country." That is a problem for people who fear persecution in 1997 or thereafter. Because of the special circumstances of Hong Kong, there should be a special system to consider applications for asylum from Hong Kong. A number of people may fear for their safety.

I am prepared to concede that if an individual arrives in this country claiming asylum, the application is dealt with expeditiously and normally quite fairly, and the outcome is usually satisfactory from the point of view of the applicant. However, it is obvious that, when more than one or two such people arrive--it may be five or six, or 20 or 30--the attitude of the Government, especially the Home Office, changes dramatically.

We need only look at the position of the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka in the mid-1980s or the Kurdish refugees who came from Turkey last year. The Government pulled down the shutters. In the case of the Kurdish refugees, the Government even sent immigration officers on to the aeroplane, and they clambered over passengers sorting out who was likely to be visiting this country in the normal course of events and who might be seeking asylum. Some asylum seekers did not even get off the aeroplane, so anxious were the Government to avoid what they regarded as a troublesome crisis.

I make that point because, if things are going badly in 1997, there could well be more than one or two people who fear for their lives or the safety of their families. The Government should set up a special system to deal with Hong Kong. I know that it will be said that there are other areas in the world that are trouble spots and are likely to generate people seeking asylum. That may be, but if we are dealing with the special circumstances of Hong Kong, we should have provisions to deal with people there.

Had it not been for the events of last year, which must have led people to fear for their lives, I doubt that we would even be discussing anything to do with Hong Kong. Most people in this country would like to think that the people of Hong Kong will be treated fairly and reasonably. I am afraid that, without a special scheme, those people

---

Column 359

will have to take their chances in the general regime and try to find refuge somewhere in the world--perhaps in this country, perhaps elsewhere.

I understand that the Government will sign an intergovernmental agreement in the next week or two that will radically alter the asylum system in Europe. There will be a common visa system throughout Europe, so that, if an applicant for asylum is refused entry in one EEC country, he will be refused entry for the entire EEC--in effect, the whole of western Europe. If that system is introduced, it will cut the opportunities available to those people who genuinely fear for their lives and their safety. The House should think long and hard before endorsing that system.

It is obvious that that development will have to be discussed at another time because it would be inappropriate to do so in this fairly narrow debate. It emphasises the point that we need a special system to deal with what are undoubtedly special circumstances. It may be that the problem will not arise and that by 1997 conditions will be radically different. But as we are debating the Bill in the belief that the problems may exist, it seems only right that we should introduce this special system to deal with people who may face a substantial risk to their lives.

8.15 pm

Mr. Madden : In supporting new clause 3, I refer to a specific case concerning applicants for political asylum from mainland China which I have raised in the House a number of times in recent weeks. I very much regret the fact that the responsible Home Office Minister is absent and that there does not seem to be any other Home Office representative here. Nevertheless, I hope that the Foreign Office Minister can announce the Government's intentions.

This case arose on Saturday 5 May when 33 mainland Chinese nationals arrived at Heathrow on their way from Panama to Canada, where they hoped to seek political asylum. It was discovered at Heathrow that, although they had valid passports, their visas for Canada were false. The carrier refused to take them on to Canada and they then requested political asylum in the United Kingdom. The immigration service initially treated them as asylum seekers, began interviewing with regard to their claims to asylum and granted them temporary admission to the United Kingdom pending the determination of their claims.

This is the normal method of handling asylum applications. There is an initial brief interview. The individuals are then admitted temporarily to the United Kingdom while a decision is taken at Home Office headquarters. This decision usually takes several months, during which the individuals can consult lawyers and further information and evidence can be submitted to clarify the basis of their claims for asylum. The individuals are sometimes invited to the Home Office for interview, at which time they can bring their own interpreters and lawyers to help them to explain their claim. This normal method has been applied up to now to all Chinese nationals who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom following the Tiananmen square massacre.

On Monday 7 May, members of various voluntary groups were contacted to help collect the 33 from the airport. These voluntary groups have been co- operating

---

Column 360

since last June to provide pastoral care to Chinese refugees in this country. Various helpers from the groups took the 33 to accommodation in north and east London.

On Wednesday 9 May, the Home Office began to indicate that it had changed its mind about the group of 33 and was proposing to deport them from England to Panama. The Home Office would, therefore, cease considering their claims to asylum. The reason is that the United Kingdom operates a "safe third country" policy : if an asylum seeker has come from a third country which is regarded as safe by the Home Office, the asylum seeker can be sent back there to apply for asylum in that country. The only role of the United Kingdom authorities in such countries is to check that the third country is truly safe. Members of the voluntary groups immediately began to check whether Panama was safe, and the information suggested that it was far from safe. The country is still chaotic after the change of Government. There are no legal safeguards for asylum seekers--the eligibility commission, which is supposed to consider asylum claims, has ceased to function. There is strong anti-Chinese feeling in the country, stirred up partly by the new Government. On Friday 11 May, representatives went to see Home Office officials to seek clarification--

---