| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.45 pm
This is a great country. This is a country that can afford to pay the price of greatness. We cannot and we must not turn anyone away from our shores if there are reasonable grounds to think that his story of torture is true. Yes, perhaps the odd rogue will stay as a result, but I would far rather that than that the man with the 100 lashes or the 100 stripes be sent back.
I thought that the letter read out by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was incredibly heartless. No civilised Department of State in any civilised country should allow any official to write such a letter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will obtain the letter, see the official and deal appropriately--as only she knows how, because she is a formidable woman--with him or her. Nobody should write such things in the name of our Government.
I shall conclude, because I do not wish to detain the House further, by saying that this new clause is about a small group of people for whom we must do everything to give them the benefit of the doubt. Our country has a proud tradition of helping those who have fled from persecution. No group is more deserving of help than that which comprises the victims of torture.
Mr. Madden:
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on his new clause, and agree thoroughly with what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said. I take issue with him, however, on the letter that was written by the Home Office official, to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has drawn the attention of hon. Members. The letter was not written by a maverick official expressing personal views; the official was reflecting well-founded Home Office policy on asylum issues.
I note from the letter, which the hon. Gentleman has kindly passed to me, that it was the Cypriot gentleman's second application. He made his first application on arrival in the United Kingdom, in 1993, with his wife and children. He made his second application in October last year. I ask the Minister of State not only to rebuke the official for writing that terrible letter, but to give us an undertaking now that, whatever has happened in the past, the Minister will ensure that this applicant has a right of appeal to an independent body so that his case can be independently assessed. I think that that is the minimum undertaking that the Minister can give.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill would ensure that
As the hon. Members for Mossley Hill and for South Staffordshire have already said, it is clear that the number of tortured persons who seek asylum in this country in any
year is extremely small. For the sake of our reputation, or what is left of our reputation, as a country in which to seek asylum, the least that the House can do is to accept the new clause.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to designation. Hon. Members will be aware that clause 1
The purpose of the new clause is to give to those who are clearly victims of torture an exemption from that procedure.
A restricted letter was written on 27 October by the Foreign Secretary and circulated to all parts of the Foreign Office and overseas posts. In that letter he stated:
I should like the Under-Secretary to explain why Nigerian nationals are included as part of the short procedure, given the gross human rights violations in that country, which are of concern to many hon. Members, and which have led to international action being taken by Her Majesty's Government and other European Union countries.
Under the heading
the letter of 27 October reveals:
Those countries are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, Poland and Romania. The letter continues:
Those are Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Tanzania.
We now know as a result of the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading in December that the countries to be designated by order are the first five to which I referred, plus India and Pakistan. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary, if he can desist from chatting to the Whip on the Front Bench, what has happened since 27 October, when the Foreign Secretary wrote:
The others specifically included are Pakistan and India. That decision enabled the Home Secretary to announce in December that India and Pakistan would be part of the designated list.
I hope that the discussion in which the Under-Secretary seems now to be engaged with the Minister of State will enable him to reply to the specific questions that I am now asking. I would very much like to know from him whether the Foreign Secretary communicated with the Home Secretary before December that he supported the
inclusion of Pakistan and India in the proposed designated list. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say that he accepts the new clause. It is an extremely important safeguard to the victims of torture and will ensure that they are not subject to certain provisions, including those on designation.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent):
This subject is one which any citizen of a rich, comfortable country must find difficult. Whether people come here as economic migrants from countries where they do not get enough to eat and where their children and families are riddled with worms, or whether they come as asylum seekers in the genuine sense of the word, to send any of them back is an unattractive thing to do. We realise, however, that we live in the real world, and however much an individual conjures up our compassion, the national response must be to limit numbers.
There is absolutely no doubt that people who have been subjected to torture are in a different category from other asylum seekers. I was pleased to put my name to the new clause, although I am not particularly enamoured of the idea that any medical practitioner should be able to sign a certificate. We know that some practitioners are less careful, less scrupulous and busier than others and would soon be identified as the ones to whom asylum seekers may go. I believe, however, that we must have an unequivocal statement from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that this country will not send back to the likelihood of further torture people who, when they came here, had, in all probability, already been tortured. I do not mind how the thing is arranged, provided that it is arranged with that result.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill(Mr. Alton) has asked for that arrangement to be included in a clause in the Bill because all of us are uneasy about the effect on conscientious, devoted civil servants of what I would describe as battle fatigue. When they have seen enough cases of people trying to pull the wool over their eyes, or people who they think are trying to do that, they become battle-hardened and cynical, and less careful. When people who have suffered torture come up against an official whose compassion barrier has been raised because he has been in that post a long time, one ends up with the kind of story that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill told us about the man from north Cyprus. For that reason, the inclusion of an automatic safeguard in the Bill becomes very attractive.
I urge upon Ministers that hon. Members must be assured that where there is a reasonable belief that someone has suffered torture, he or she will not be sent back. If we can have that assurance, I will not feel wedded to the wording of the new clause.
Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and West Devon):
I am honoured to support the new clause and am very glad to be on the Benches of the hon. Members who sponsored it, and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and other hon. Members.
"Nothing in this Act shall apply to a person who has made a claim for asylum where a registered medical practitioner . . . has issued a certificate, in a form to be prescribed, stating in good faith that he is of the opinion that that person has been tortured."
"empowers the Secretary of State to designate by order countries where there is in general no serious risk of persecution. It makes the special appeals procedure for claims without foundation available for a wider range of claims, including those by nationals of designated countries."
"UK press has speculated on possible introduction of a 'white list'. This would require primary legislation . . . Cannot anticipate announcement. If it were adopted, careful account would need to be taken of human rights and other relevant conditions in a country before it could be listed . . . However, Home Office has been piloting since May a short procedure for deciding straightforward asylum claims likely to prove unfounded. Procedure limited to selected cases from nationalities which experience has shown generate very high refusal rates . . . These are Ghana, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Romania and Poland. Consideration being given to possible expansion to other nationalities."
"Background--Restricted--Not For Use"
"The countries listed below, which are the leading nations giving rise to large numbers of unfounded asylum claims, are candidates for a designated list. We agree with the Home Office that countries nos. 1-5 may be designated".
"we have yet to come to a decision on the others."
"There are no plans (as suggested in the UK press) to designate Nigeria, Sri Lanka or Algeria."
"we have yet to come to a decision on the others."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |