| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.7 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): Yes, well, Madam Deputy Speaker, is all that one can say about the contribution of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
The order is about speed, not justice. That is the simple message that is sent to the House. The message is clear from the explanatory note, which reminds us that the order provides part of the machinery for an "accelerated appeal procedure". It is not a more effective, more efficient or a more just and equitable appeal procedure: it is an accelerated appeal procedure.
The order establishes a rebuttable presumption against asylum status for those coming from white list countries. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Shoreham can sit still for a moment, try to concentrate and put all his silly notions out of his mind, I will tell him what a rebuttable presumption is.
Let me draw a picture for the hon. Gentleman in his mind of the scales of justice. When civil litigation of any kind starts, the scales of justice are evenly balanced. But in this instance there is a rebuttable presumption, so--if the hon. Gentleman will concentrate again for a moment--a bag of rotten apples is being put in one side of the scales of justice.
That is what a rebuttable presumption is. That is what it means. Metaphorically speaking, asylum seekers from one of the white list countries must eat the bag of rotten apples first, and then present their case. I ask the Minister, who I know is excited by the debate, to concentrate for a few moments, because I hope that we will receive an answer to this when the debate is wound up.
I respectfully submit to the House that the Government are doing this contrary to two international treaty obligations.
Mr. Carlile:
The Minister can reply later. I am glad that she is listening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
Name the obligations.
Mr. Carlile:
I will. The first is article 3 of the 1951 United Nations convention, which states:
But the order is also contrary to article 13 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms--I know that the Government do not like it, but we have been in it since 1948--because it provides that--[Interruption.] I wonder why the Minister finds this terribly funny. If she would like to intervene and tell us the joke, I would be pleased to hear it, and so would this country's asylum seekers.
Miss Widdecombe:
The joke is the sheer ineptitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. If the creation of a designated list were against international law, why is it valid in so many other countries?
Mr. Carlile:
The hon. Lady must tell us exactly what advice--she must place it in the Library--she has received from Government lawyers and from outside counsel, if the Government have taken it, as to whether--[Interruption.] She seems to find this whole thing a joke. I will give way to the Minister in a moment, but this subject is not regarded as one for hilarity by the many thousands of people who fear that, if they are returned to countries such as India or Pakistan, they will be persecuted.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington):
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it ill behoves Ministers to talk about ineptitude when, not once but twice, the spirit of the legislation has been knocked back in the courts as contrary to all tenets of human justice?
Mr. Carlile:
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I was going to remind the Minister that the order appears, at least to me, to breach article 13 of the European convention. The order amounts to an ineffective remedy, because of the introduction of the presumption, and it runs contrary to the Council of Europe resolution of 20 June 1995, in that it gives only 10 days for the asylum seeker to prepare his appeal, which cannot be regarded as adequate time to do so.
There is a world of difference between someone who fears real persecution if he is sent back, for example, to Pakistan preparing such an appeal and the purring motor of the high-cost sector of civil litigation, where interlocutory appeals can occasionally be heard within seven or 14 days. The scales of justice are nothing more than the digestion of prejudice by euphemism. The presumption against asylum seekers from these countries is institutionalising prejudice against every applicant from every one of those countries, and the Minister knows it.
The order is all about one thing, and one thing only. It gets the Government out of one of the biggest cock-ups--and that is saying something--that even they have ever created. They have been running the immigration and asylum service for the past 17 years. They have allowed the system to get into the mess it is in.
Miss Widdecombe:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile:
No, I will not give way.
The Minister of State does not like hearing this, but it is true that the Government have created this chaos.
Mr. Carlile:
I will not give way. The hon. Lady should wait and stop interrupting. She, on behalf of the Government, has created the utter mess that has led to a huge backlog of cases. We are discriminating against people because the Government cannot run the Department properly.
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East):
I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about Bulgaria. Nor do I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about Poland. Both those countries are now full members of the democratic community--the Council of Europe. They have signed the European convention on human rights--
Ms Abbott:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Atkinson:
No, I shall continue for the time being.
That convention offers the strongest possible protection of human rights--our citizens and members of the Council of Europe are protected by it. Those countries have all held free and fair elections, which is why we allowed them to become full members of the Council of Europe. Both Bulgaria and Poland have strong and active human rights organisations--a residue of their communist days--that know how to operate the machinery of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, I do not share the concerns expressed about those countries being designated as safe countries.
I should say in response to the suggestion that Bulgaria has not yet signed the framework convention on minorities that the hon. Member for Walthamstow must
surely know that that has only just come into being. A large number of member states of the Council of Europe have yet to sign it. I have no doubt that Bulgaria will sign it after its presidential elections, which are to be held next month. I have no problems with any member states that are full members of the Council of Europe.
However, I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the situation in Pakistan--not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I expressed my concerns at Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill on 21 February.
In response to those concerns, my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave certain assurances, which she has repeated this evening. She also gave those assurances to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and me when we discussed the situation in Pakistan at a private meeting with her and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary had only just returned from Pakistan, where he had seen the situation for himself--unlike many other people.
In view of the concerns that have been expressed so forcibly by the hon. Member for Blackburn this evening, will my hon. Friend the Minister use the opportunity of her response to point out once again that no Pakistani Christian or member of the Ahmadi sect who applies for asylum in this country and is being subjected to harassment, threat of assassination, life imprisonment or the death penalty for violating section 295(c) of the Pakistani penal code--the blasphemy law--will face the threat of being refused asylum if they have a strong enough case?
Miss Widdecombe:
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that no one applying for asylum in this country who has a strong enough case--who makes the case of a well-founded fear of persecution, and sustains the merits of that case--will be refused asylum.
"The contracting states shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion, or country of origin."
It is plain that the white list discriminates against country of origin. What is a white list if it is not a deliberate act by Government to set one lot of countries of origin against another lot of countries of origin? Part of the rationale behind the United States Government's decision not to have a white list system is exactly that they understand article 3 of the 1951 convention.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |