| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 pm
I am concerned about the decisions that are made from those paragraphs. In one case, an African had been beaten by Government employees for many months in his country of origin, which is a place of massive instability and successive revolutions. His senior family members had been killed because they supported the wrong side for a time. The Home Secretary, in his refusal of this man's claim for asylum, stated:
The futility of that statement is beyond belief. If Government employees are beating somebody, what possible hope is there that that Government would assist that person? The Secretary of State's lack of understanding and his sheer determination to keep these people out concerns me more than anything. We are talking about a victim of torture, who managed to flee to a second African country--another country of turmoil, with a dreadful track record on human rights, as the United Kingdom well knows. The Secretary of State wrote:
How can one possibly apply for asylum in a country from which other people are already fleeing? The Secretary of State does not want these people here at all. That is the key to everything.
The letter continued:
That was because he did not seek assistance from the authorities who were torturing him, and because he did not seek asylum in a second country. The only country that he could reach already has a revolution and has had a history of revolutions.
In a letter to another asylum seeker, the Secretary of State remarked that there had been a very high proportion of unmeritorious applications. If it was an unmeritorious application, this is indeed "Alice in Wonderland". It was an application from somebody in the greatest need. The Secretary of State made the point that the applicant had not sought asylum in another country, but the Secretary of State simply does not understand that a number of countries are infinitely more open-hearted than the United Kingdom in their acceptance of people in trouble.
Some 2.5 million displaced people are in Iran, but they do not apply for asylum. Iran cannot give 2.5 million people asylum, because of all the rights and obligations that it would create for those people and Iran, but it gives them shelter, house room, ability to work, food and clothing--the basics of life. Those people will not get asylum there, so for the Secretary of State to refuse an application because somebody had not applied for asylum in another country or in a country like Iran, which accepts vast numbers of displaced people and refugees, is unbelievable.
Iraq was branded a legitimate trading partner in 1988--the same time as Saddam Hussein was bombing the Kurds with chemical weapons. Presumably, Iraq would be on the white list now. A torture victim, Dr. Hassan, is a friend of mine. He was the doctor who certified death after the executions that were carried out regularly on hundreds of people every week in Al Gahraib prison, where the Kuwaiti prisoners of war are kept. After that, he was placed in a factory, to look after the health of the people creating chemical weapons. They were known to have high health needs. While there, he saw British-labelled supplies coming in to create the chemical weapons. His purpose was to maintain the health of the staff. Then, because he was not seen to be sufficiently sound, he was tortured very heavily for two years.
It took Dr. Hassan a long time to admit that he had been tortured. He was a surgeon, a man of high professional ability, and the feeling of degradation, the inarticulacy that followed that degradation, the shame at having been physically violated in every conceivable corner of his body and being unable to withstand it on his terms, had stopped him talking about it for a very long time. He felt a man apart. He and others whom I know who have been tortured are indeed a race apart. They are a race of the strongest and most wonderful men and women alive today. To put such people on the fast-track system and assume that when they turn up at Heathrow or another airport they can unload all of that immediately is just plain cruel.
I feel ashamed that we should consider enacting the proposed legislation. I beg the Minister to consider the plight of the victims of torture. Several hon. Members have read out the treatment that those victims are receiving under the current legislation. The Bill will worsen their situation dramatically.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
There is no doubt whatever that this is an issue of great concern. I listened with particular attention to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who expressed deep feelings about humanitarianism. I hope that I will be allowed an opportunity to explain why I believe that this country's position is an honourable one, and why our application of humanitarianism is second to none.
Although comparatively, in percentage terms, few of the applications for asylum that are made to this country meet the criteria that we apply in accordance with the United Nations convention of 1951, we have--this is unusual to this country in many respects--exceptional leave to remain, which takes care of a great number of
cases that would otherwise not meet the basic criteria, which are used where we believe that there are compassionate or humanitarian reasons to allow someone to remain in this country.
Miss Emma Nicholson:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kirkhope:
Not at the moment.
That is very important.
We all know how appalling torture is when it is used on an institutional basis by a nation or a particular regime or when it is used by individuals or criminals against others. Who could forget the appalling television pictures of our RAF service men who had been tortured by the Iraqis after capture and were paraded in front of our screens for political effect? No one could ever forget that, and no one ever should.
If we did not adopt a particular approach to victims of torture, I should be able to recommend further consideration of the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). However, we are signatories not only to the 1951 United Nations convention--which we apply properly and fairly to asylum applicants--but to article 3 of the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which was concluded in 1981.
The parts of the convention that we observe include the provision that
There may be circumstances in which a person would face torture if returned to his country of origin, but would not have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or a political opinion. In those circumstances, the United Kingdom meets its international obligations by granting exceptional leave to remain.
Miss Nicholson:
I understand that those with exceptional leave to remain will indeed be at risk if the Bill is passed unchanged, under a number of clauses. Will the Minister clarify that?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I can state categorically that that is not the case. I am proud that this country is able to provide such leave, and will exercise its powers to do so when there is evidence to suggest that applicants would be tortured if they were returned to their countries. Let me give a clear undertaking--virtually repeating the article that I quoted a moment ago--that we will not send people back when there is a reasonable belief that they will face torture. I hope that that helps my hon. Friends, and others who have raised the question.
Let me make a technical point. If new clause 5 were accepted, it would have the direct result of putting all alleged victims of torture entirely outside normal immigration control--not just in respect of the Bill, but in respect of the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules attached to it and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals
Act 1993. In effect, such people would have the same rights immediately, on a medical certificate, as any British national.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
I accept--as I did earlier--that there may be deficiencies in the new clause, but people are very worried. Will my hon. Friend undertake to receive those who have spoken tonight, and who are acutely concerned, and is he prepared to consider an amendment in the other place if the Bill does not cover torture victims adequately?
"During the period of alleged torture, when not in detention you made no attempt to approach the authorities in your country. You have stated that you did not believe that the authorities could have provided a solution to the problem. However, the Secretary of State believes that in the light of facts you have provided it would have been an appropriate course of action for you to seek assistance from the authorities."
"The Secretary of State knows that on your arrival . . . you did not claim asylum there. The Secretary of State considers this is not consistent with someone in need of international protection, whom he believes would apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity."
"Therefore the Secretary of State considers that you have failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution as defined by the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to Status of Refugees."
"No State Party shall expel, return . . . or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |