| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): I promise to be brief in the hope that, among other things, that will please the Chief Whip.
I support the amendment. I am only sorry that it does not incorporate the so-called ritual of female genital mutilation, which vile practice is inflicted on many millions of women each year. I recently asked the Home Office and the Foreign Office what succour they give those countries whose Governments allow such rituals to continue. Would the Minister treat with sympathy an application for asylum by a woman fleeing one of those countries to escape that so-called ritual?
In New York recently, a young woman from Togo sought asylum in the United States on those grounds. She was promptly handcuffed and fettered and put in a New York prison for women. Fortunately, she has been rescued from incarceration and a New York family is looking after her. She was encouraged to flee by her elder sisters, who had suffered that torture. I have heard of other women who have undergone that dreadful practice urging their younger sisters to flee to the west to avoid the torture.
Miss Emma Nicholson:
The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) raised that case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the lady concerned has received settlement. I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) suggest, entry clearance officers in our embassies and high commissions will consider such cases favourably.
Dr. Godman:
In fairness to the Government, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), told me that his Department was working to provide aid to health education programmes in countries whose Governments are making genuine attempts to reduce, if not eliminate, the practice. I know that I will get an answer from the Minister if I can get her attention--she is blethering away to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). This is an important issue. If a woman seeks asylum in Britain on such grounds, she should be given it.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
I signed amendment (b) because it seemed to me that I was merely signing a statement of the obvious:
5.30 pm
"'torture' includes the inflicting of involuntary abortion or involuntary sterilisation, and the phrase 'has been tortured' shall be construed accordingly."
15 Jul 1996 : Column 816
-
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can dissent from such a simple statement of the obvious. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will do anything other than accept it. It would not particularly strengthen the Bill, and it certainly cannot weaken it. It would make it clear beyond any doubt that we believe that such barbarous practices are among the worst methods of inflicting torture on a human being.
Under amendments (d) and (e), asylum applicants would be excluded from the accelerated appeal procedure if their country of origin is reported by certain UN bodies to have an extensive practice of torture. Let me say right away that I entirely share the House's concern about giving adequate protection to victims of torture. I state categorically that if anyone were to establish that he or she were in danger of torture, that person would have clear grounds for asylum. That has always been the Government's position and that remains our position. The question is whether this additional exemption is helpful. I believe that it is not because the Bill tries to establish the general principle that the individual must make a claim based on that individual's circumstances.
I have already said in response to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that there is no intention whatever in the accelerated procedure of failing to consider applications on their merits. There is no intention whatever of depriving people of the opportunity to establish a claim based on torture or on any other valid ground for asylum. The amendments would lead to separate exemption for applicants who, by definition, were unable to establish a claim of torture, notwithstanding their country's poor record. I cannot discern a convincing argument for the proposition that an asylum seeker who has not himself been tortured and whose claim, on individual consideration, is found to be manifestly unfounded or not to qualify for certification under one of the other headings in clause 1, should nevertheless be exempted from having his appeal accelerated.
Secondly, the argument in favour of the Lords amendment--that asylum seekers who have experienced torture in the past may be especially vulnerable and, in particular, may be suffering from traumatic effects that make it desirable to allow them more time to prepare their appeal--cannot be advanced in support of these amendments, which would exempt asylum seekers from having their appeal accelerated if they have not been tortured. Amendments (d) and (e) would mean that for certain nationalities, asylum appeals could not be accelerated even if it became apparent after proper individual consideration that they were manifestly unfounded. The amendments would significantly and unjustifiably restrict the availability of the accelerated appeal procedure. They would greatly reduce the impact
of clause 1 as a deterrent against abuse of appeals and as a means of enabling such appeals to be processed more quickly.
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North):
Does the Minister accept that she is mistaken in her reading of our amendment? Amendment (e) relates to cases where applicants claim political asylum because of torture. Its last line refers to the
Miss Widdecombe:
No. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was not talking about areas or particular religious groups. I said that simply because a country had an established record of torture, an individual whose claim was manifestly unfounded, and who could be shown neither to have been tortured nor reasonably to fear torture, would nevertheless under the amendments be exempt.
Miss Widdecombe:
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want turn to the amendment that occupied most of the debate. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and ably supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who, in respect of such issues, I often refer to as my hon. Friend. On this occasion, I deeply regret that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. There are several reasons for that.
First, there is the use of term "involuntary" rather than "forcible". "Involuntary" can cover a wide range of circumstances from, at one end of the spectrum, forcible abortion or sterilisation, which in all circumstances are repugnant and cruel and would indeed constitute torture, to cases where a woman undergoes an abortion because of pressure from her partner or family but not necessarily from the state. That, I am afraid, is the definition of "involuntary". I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that that is too wide. He will know that if that word were used in the Bill, it would have to be interpreted in that fashion. For those reasons, I cannot accept it.
Mr. Alton:
Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, whether the term used is "forcible" or "involuntary", it amounts to the same act of cruelty both to the woman and to her unborn child. Whether the pressure comes from the state, partner or individual, such action has not been from personal choice. It amounts to the same thing.
Miss Widdecombe:
The hon. Gentleman is not thinking clearly.
Mr. Madden:
The remedy for the defect to which the Minister pointed lies in her hands. Will she table an amendment in another place that uses the term "forcible"? That would meet her objections and the concerns of hon. Members. It would immediately answer the fears of many women, not least those from China.
Miss Widdecombe:
Had that been the only objection, I might well have considered that course of action, but as I said in my introductory remarks, there are several reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. However, I stress that both personally and as a Minister I utterly accept that forcible abortion, sterilisation, genital mutilation and allied practices would almost always constitute torture. In fact, they would probably always constitute torture. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone making a case to us on those grounds would have an extremely good case for asylum.
"extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances which are referred to in the claim."
It therefore relates only to cases where the applicant says that he is afraid of torture in that specific circumstance or area.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |