| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Henderson: I am mindful that the House wishes to proceed to deal with other matters. Therefore, all I wish
to say about amendment No. 8 is that all of us who have been involved for the past two months and more in Committee know that the Dublin convention makes sense. It is sensible to proceed by agreement among European Union countries. Two countries have yet to agree to that convention. Amendment No. 8 recognises that others have still to complete their signatures, but we should proceed on the basis that it is signed. In most instances, reciprocity could be sought on a bilateral level with other countries.
We welcome the Government's change on appeals from third countries where those countries are outside the European Union. Originally, the Government believed that persons should return to those countries to make their appeal, and I am glad that the Government recognise that that was completely impractical and would have guaranteed no fairness or protection for the individuals involved.
If a political asylum procedure is to be fair and perceived as fair, it is very difficult to cover all eventualities, even in the European Union. I have been told of the difficulties of presenting an appeal from countries such as Italy, and in some cases Belgium, because of relationships that they have with other countries and because of their various legal systems.
If we genuinely want to stand up--as Conservative Members have suggested--and say that we are a rich country, that we should be fair, and that we should look sympathetically at applications made by people with a genuine fear of persecution, we should allow appeals to be made even if people come through a third country to this country. That is why I am not prepared to withdraw amendment No. 11.
I heard what the Minister of State said about amendment No. 12, and that may be considered further in another place.
Miss Emma Nicholson:
The Minister of State didnot give way to me, and it is therefore good of you,Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me.
This group of amendments will change the legislation in line with Government statements in discussions of clauses 2 and 3 in Committee. We are concerned especially about amendment No. 36, because it would allow asylum seekers to be removed without an in-country right of appeal to member states of the European Union, or to other countries which will be specified in an order laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. Surely this amendment will leave many people at risk of being repatriated because of the failure of certain European member states to apply effectively the 1951 convention or to ensure that all the officials at their border posts do so.
Amendment No. 36 also leaves open the question, which is even more worrying, which countries might be named in an order and gives more power to the Secretary of State alone. What criteria will be introduced to determine whether a country could correctly be named? We have already commented on the limitations of the negative resolution procedure for debating any such order.
It is, of course, important to put it on the record too that the majority of third-country appeals allowed since the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into effect have been in relation to European Union countries. So our concerns are real, and we have evidence already.
Surely the adjudicators would not have allowed such appeals if they had not had serious concerns about returning asylum seekers to those European Union countries. We believe that a proper appeal is still needed for those cases. The Refugee Legal Centre was, quite rightly, quoted in Standing Committee D about the 1993 legislation. It stated:
In that context I refer especially to amendment No. 8, which includes references to
Mistakes can be made, which can be dramatic and sometimes outstanding. By diligent work--the matter was extremely difficult--I recently stopped the deportation of a Dartmoor prisoner, who was under order to be deported to India. Yet he was a British subject. He had been one since birth. His father was similarly a British subject. Why India? He told me that he had no "linguistic, cultural or historical" ties there. I asked him, "Why India?" He replied, "Perhaps because my father was an employee of the Indian air force during his career."
It required vast efforts to get the prisoner's case re-examined--in other words, to stop a British subject being deported to India at the end of his sentence. Another beneficial result of my efforts was that his conviction and sentence were quashed, but that is another matter.
If the Home Secretary can make such a mistake--it is a recorded case--which would lead to deportation for life to India for someone who had no links with that country, surely asylum seekers can expect short shrift if errors are made, and there will be many. My party is opposed to the Government amendment, and supports the Opposition amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 37, in page 2, line 40, at end insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 16, in page 4, leave out lines 1 to 9.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: No. 43, in page 3, line 41, leave out from 'obtaining' to end of line 43 and insert
Mr. Henderson:
I beg to move amendment No. 51,in page 5, line 11, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (2A) and'.
"The introduction of a right of appeal which could be exercised prior to removal to a third country deemed to be safe was a welcome feature of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. For the first time, there was independent judicial scrutiny of decisions to refuse leave to enter on the grounds that an asylum seeker could be safely returned to a third country."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 January 1996; c. 235.]
"no close family ties or other links (including linguistic, cultural or historical"
'(2A) The conditions are--
(a) that the person is not a national or citizen of the country or territory to which he is to be sent;
(b) that his life and liberty would not be threatened in that country or territory by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and
(c) that the government of that country or territory would not send him to another country or territory otherwise than in accordance with the Convention.
(2B) This subsection applies to any country or territory which is or forms part of a member State, or is designated for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(2C) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2D) For the purposes of this section, an appeal under section 3 below is pending during the period beginning when notice of appeal is duly given and ending when the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.'.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Amendments made: No. 38, in page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (1) and insert--
'(1) Where a certificate has been issued under section 2(1) above in respect of any person--
(a) that person may appeal against the certificate to a special adjudicator on the ground that any of the conditions mentioned in section 2(2A) above was not fulfilled when the certificate was issued, or has since ceased to be fulfilled; but
(b) unless and until the certificate is set aside on such an appeal, he shall not be entitled to bring or pursue any appeal under section 8 of the 1993 Act (appeals to special adjudicator on Convention grounds).'.
No. 39, in page 3, line 4, after 'person', insert
'who has been, or is to be, sent to a country or territory to which section 2(2B) above applies'.
No. 40, in page 3, line 23, after 'Act' insert '(a)'.
No. 41, in page 3, line 24, after 'section' insert 'and
(b) may make different provision in relation to appeals by persons who have been, or are to be, sent to countries or territories of different descriptions;'.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Amendment made: No. 42, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'deception' and insert
'means which include deception by him'.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'an asylum claimant' and insert
'intending to make a claim for asylum which is without foundation'.--[Mr. Henderson.]
'by anyone of leave to remain in the United Kingdom by means which he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to include deception'.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |