| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I accept that the Minister believes that applications from individuals even from white list countries will be dealt with on their merits, but there is a logical inconsistency in the hon. Lady's case. Unless the white list ensures a more summary procedure, in which white list applicants will have fewer rights of scrutiny of their cases, it will serve no purpose.
Under examination in the House, the white list proposals fell apart--even more so in the other place, which is why Lords amendment No. 1 is before the House.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill):
I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman's points. Is he aware that when the Committee considered some of the countries that are to appear on the designated list, Labour Members and others pointed out that the list would have a doubly
Mr. Straw:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
It was nicely ironic that in the other place the Minister of State, Lady Blatch, spoke about the independent evidence that would be available to Ministers and on which they would base their country assessments. Lady Blatch talked about the Carter Centre, Amnesty International and the US State Department. Would that the British Government had taken notice of the State Department's practice.
In the 1980s, the US faced a more difficult situation on asylum than confronts our country today, yet decided not to follow a white list procedure. One of the State Department's senior officials recently told me of the three reasons for that decision--all of them applicable to the UK. One is that they feared that the inclusion or exclusion of a country from the white list would generate considerable additional litigation in the US courts. That is, of course, almost certainly what would happen in this country. This area of the law is already very complicated and judicial review quite often has to occur because other powers of appeal are inadequate.
Secondly, to pick up directly on the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the US State Department decided not to go down the road of a white list because of the adverse diplomatic consequences that it feared in respect of countries that were put on the list and then subsequently omitted. It also believed that, perversely, the omission of a country from the list in the first place would encourage asylum seekers to make applications.
The white list began, as we were led to believe, as a great long list. I understand that, now, only seven countries are likely to be designated: India, Pakistan, Ghana, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland and Romania. From general knowledge about those countries, one realises that, in almost every one, it is arguable whether there is no general risk of persecution under the convention definitions in respect of either the whole territory or all the communities.
India, for example, for which I have great affection, in which I have spent some time and from which I have many constituents, has achieved a remarkable amount as one of the major democracies of Asia. Although I fully accept that, generally, there is no risk of persecution, the argument cannot run in respect of some of the people in Kashmir, where the most severe difficulties remain.
Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and West Devon):
Despite both his and my affection for India, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that were Mr. Rushdie to return there, there might be some fear of persecution? It is right that every case should be considered on its merits, irrespective of the country to which the person might be returning.
Mr. Straw:
It depends to which part of the country Mr. Rushdie went, which, in a sense, makes my point and the hon. Lady's. Of course, each case must be considered on its merits.
Pakistan, sadly, has not had the same continuous democratic tradition as India. It is now operating under democratic institutions, but remains very fragile. In the Karachi area, there is a high degree of communal violence, not to say in some instances quite serious political violence. Indeed, it is in the living memory of everyone in the House that Governments in that country, under General Zia for example, routinely tortured political opponents, including, most notoriously but by no means exclusively, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the father of the present Prime Minister.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill again, if Pakistan were on the white list and there was a change of regime, it would doubly complicate diplomatic questions to the Foreign Office and the high commission in Pakistan on whether and in what circumstances the country was to be removed from the white list. That would make it much more difficult for us to apply pressure on that country for a restoration of democratic political institutions.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West):
Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Pakistan, will he comment on the continuing persecution faced by the religious Ahmadi community? Will he also press the Home Office to produce the home country assessment reports to which he referred? We are still waiting for such reports on India and Pakistan. When on earth will we get them, so that we may see the assessment that the Government are making of human rights in India and Pakistan?
Mr. Straw:
The alleged persecution of that community highlights the fact that a country may, generally speaking, respect human rights, but particular communities in it might be the subject of intense persecution. The Government's blanket approach and their attempts to whitewash a country will obscure that issue, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West asks when we are likely to get the country assessments. The Minister is better qualified than me to answer that. I can say only that, when the matter was debated in the other place on 23 April, Baroness Blatch said repeatedly that the country assessments would be made available before any affirmative resolution came before the House and the other place asking for approval of the countries on the white list. That leads me directly to amendment (f).
Under pressure in the other place, the Government agreed that the initial list of countries on the white list should be the subject of the affirmative procedure, so that the House would have an opportunity to debate the inclusion of those countries in the list before the list was, as it were, set in concrete. Bizarrely, the Government refused to allow the same procedure to apply when countries that were not on the original list were added to it. That is completely inconsistent, and our amendment would set that right, while allowing Ministers to drop a country from the list when there has been a shift away from democratic institutions, without the immediate necessity to come back to the House.
On Report, in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, Ministers agreed that torture, even if it fell outside the 1951 convention, was a good ground on which exceptional leave to remain in this country should be given. The Under-Secretary gave various undertakings to that effect when the matter was debated earlier this year. Again, under pressure in the other place, Ministers finally agreed that the acceptance that torture outside the 1951 convention should be a ground for exclusion from the operation of the white list should be in the Bill, and it now appears in paragraph 5(5) of amendment No. 1.
Our amendment seeks to supplement that provision by providing that, if the person making the application claims to fear persecution in a country or territory where the United Nations committee against torture or the UN special rapporteur on torture has published documentary evidence of extensive practice of torture of the type or in the circumstances referred to in the claim, that person should be exempted from the white list fast-track procedure. I hope that our amendment finds favour with Ministers.
Miss Widdecombe
indicated dissent.
Mr. Straw:
The Minister shakes her head, which, in India, of course, means an acceptance of the point. I hope that she has learnt that from visits to that country.
The amendment represents an important supplementary addition to what Ministers say is their concern as much as ours to ensure protection of victims from torture. It is drafted carefully and comes into play only when documentary evidence shows extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances referred to in the claim.
As we have heard and know, India is proposed to be on the white list, yet I have the report of the Commission on Human Rights by the rapporteur on torture relating to India, especially Kashmir, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has kindly provided me. The rapporteur quite fairly details the allegations of torture that have been received and the Indian Government's response. The report states:
"The Special Rapporteur transmitted 50 individual cases and received replies to 43 of these cases."
The document reveals substantial evidence of torture in Kashmir. I cannot say whether that evidence is wholly corroborated or substantiated. Sadly, neither can the special rapporteur because, according to the report,
"He continues to believe . . . that the situation remains such that a visit to the country would be desirable and he regrets that the Government has not yet deemed it appropriate or opportune to invite him."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |