| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.30 pm
I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about Pakistan and Romania. As was acknowledged, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I met the hon. Members who tabled amendments Nos. 21 and 22 last month, to hear their concerns about Pakistan. We listened closely to their arguments but heard nothing to dissuade us from our assessment that Pakistan and Romania are at present suitable candidates for designation in the terms that I have explained. That does not mean that we are saying that anybody in those countries could never, in any circumstances, be in fear of persecution or produce outstanding humanitarian grounds for exceptional leave to remain. My right hon. and learned Friend visited Pakistan at the beginning of this year and found no grounds for altering our assessment of conditions in that country.
I draw a distinction between fear of persecution by a ruling regime, which would cause us to examine the situation most carefully, and fear of persecution by neighbours in small pockets or particular territories, in which case there is the possibility of movement within the country. Far more important, there is the possibility of an appeal to the authorities in that country to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, I do not rule out individual applicants from such countries, even after designation, making a case for asylum--which, under the terms of the convention we would gladly and willingly honour our obligation to accept.
Mr. Alton:
I am grateful to the Minister for her answers. We should be careful before emasculating the powers of the House. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) and I have been able to put specific points about Romania and Pakistan. By approving the Bill in its present form, the House is denying itself the right ever to have such a debate again because in future, the negative procedure will be used in Committee.
The Minister said that if the Secretary of State is unhappy about a particular country, he will not list it. Countries such as Cyprus have already been listed. Letters saying that there are no human rights problems in that country were read to the House earlier, yet we all know that that is contrary to reality. The hon. Lady said that differences between bad neighbours leading to disputes or
particular problems in which one group agitating against another might affect minorities are different from systematic persecution by a Government. I agree, but if one takes the example of Romania, what was the difference between the Securitate operating under the Ceausescu regime and the Securitate under the Iliescu regime? The results were exactly the same for the people who suffered.
In the case of Pakistan, the situation that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East described would not occur if the blasphemy laws were not on the statute book and framed as they are. The Pakistan Government,in failing to repeal those laws, are allowing persecution to continue.
This debate would be better pursued in the other place. I do not believe that anything would be gained by dividing the House--there was a Division in Committee on the matter. Having aired the issues, I am happy to leave it to the other place to re-examine them and to amend the Bill. We will then have the opportunity to reconsider the Bill as amended. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 31, in page 1, line 21, at end insert--
No. 32, in page 2, line 5, after 'Act,' insert
No. 33, in page 2, line 14, at end insert '(2),'.
No. 34, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'paragraph'and insert 'sub-paragraphs'.--[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Mr. Henderson:
I beg to move amendment No. 6,in page 2, line 18, after 'paragraph', insert '--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 2, line 18, after 'shall', insert
No. 25, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'be'to 'House' in line 20 and insert
Mr. Henderson:
I shall speak to amendment No. 6 briefly because the House might give priority to other matters, not that they are necessarily more important. Some aspects of the issues that relate to amendment
I disapprove of the so-called white list because I do not believe that a country can properly fulfil its obligations under an international treaty and the United Nations convention by introducing two lists for different types of asylum applications. If we genuinely believe that cases should be considered on their merits, one procedure should be used regardless of an applicant's origins. I am not suggesting that we should tolerate the delays that have occurred in asylum cases, or that we should be soft on bogus applications, but the House should devise a fair procedure that gives the genuine political asylum seeker a chance to put his or her case, provides legal representation, and allows a case to be processed speedily--and which, if the applicant does not agree with the result, provides for an appeal to be heard in this country.
The resources necessary to allow the Home Office and the judicial system to operate that procedure should be made available--as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said in a previous debate. He was formerly the Minister responsible. He recognised that the only proper course was to make extra resources available--which would save on costs tomorrow. I refer not only to the administrative costs created by the delays but to those that might accrue to local authorities or other bodies charged with providing for persons waiting for their cases to be heard.
Instead, there will be two lists. We do not know the time limits that will operate, but we know the identity of some of the countries included on the designated list. Newspaper reports have rumoured that the list will be extended.
Mr. Henderson:
I did not claim that they were other than rumours. The original press leaks some months ago were not too inaccurate.
I do not believe that the proposed system will be effective, and certainly it will not be fair. The House should be given the opportunity to judge any change in the lists, so that hon. Members can make the case for a particular country appearing on either one of them. That view was articulated by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who said that there were strong arguments to be made in respect of Pakistan.
Under the negative procedure proposed by the Government, the orders will come into force before the House has had an opportunity to consider all relevant aspects. I do not argue against the negative procedure being used when a country is taken off a list. If the political or military situation changes in a country, the Government must be able to act quickly, but when the list is added to, an affirmative resolution of this House is called for.
Mr. Alton:
I support what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said.I should like to speak also to amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which would allow countries to be dealt with individually, not by a "block vote" and allow Parliament to vote in a proper manner instead of using the negative procedure that we have already discussed extensively.
In Committee, other countries were often cited as models that we should follow when framing our procedures. It turns out that we tend to dismiss the safeguards deployed by those archetypal countries, however. Denmark has such a list, but its refugee council has an absolute right of veto over the inclusion of any country on it. I would not go as far as to say that an outside organisation should have such power, but that is an interesting contrast with the Government's approach. In Germany, these matters are debated in the upper house of the Bundestag, which can vote on them--yet the same safeguards will not apply here. Belgium, which introduced the system that we are being advised to accept, abolished it in 1993. Italy, Spain, Austria and France do not even have safe country of origin lists, although some of them have looked into such methods and decided against them.
We have missed the chance here of adopting a European approach. Some harmonisation might be useful in this area--although I see the Government Whip tutting because I dare to mention the word "Europe". Not too many of his rebellious colleagues are present this evening, so perhaps I may develop the point. A standardised procedure would be far better than a patchwork quilt of procedures throughout Europe and would not put other European countries in a difficult situation.
I want to give one further example of how the lists do not take into account changes of Government that can occur and hence the risk of real unfairness owing to governmental idiosyncrasies. India is included on the list, but everyone who knows it knows that there are massive regional variations. There are minority problems and local discrepancies, all of which render the list approach undesirable.
Before the House approves the lists, we should remember that countries such as India and Ghana have been designated. In its 1995 report Amnesty International had this to say about India:
'(3) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if, on his arrival in the United Kingdom, the appellant was required by an immigration officer to produce a valid passport and either--
(a) he failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so; or
(b) he produced a passport which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of that fact.'.
'has been recommended for deportation by a court empowered by that Act to do so,'.
(a) the purpose of which is to designate any country or territory under sub-paragraph (3) above shall--
(i) relate to only one country or territory, and
(ii) be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House; or
(b) the purpose of which is to remove any country or territory, or countries or territories, from designation under sub-paragraph (3) above'.
', if made under sub-paragraph (3) above, relate to only one country or territory and shall'.
'laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each'.
"Thousands of political prisoners were held without charge or trial. Torture and ill-treatment of detainees were routine, resulting in hundreds of deaths in police and military custody. Scores of political detainees disappeared".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |