| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Atkinson: I am delighted to hear that repetition, which I know the whole House will have noted and--hopefully--found reassuring.
On Report, I referred to a number of Pakistani Christians who had been killed by Muslims because they were Christian. Since then, a new case has been drawn to my attention. To safeguard his identity, he is codenamed Pastor Sam. He converted to Christianity in 1973, since when he has suffered maltreatment, harassment, police beatings, illegal custody, torture and other abuse. Since his Christian marriage, he has been targeted by Islamic extremists, who have falsely accused him of a minor affray in order to have him arrested, after which he would have undoubtedly met death in custody. He was, however, bailed. He is now in hiding awaiting a magistrate's response to allegations of blasphemy under section 295(c) of the Pakistan penal code, which would certainly be accompanied by a charge of apostasy if and when he were arrested, and followed by certain death.
Mr. Keith Hill (Streatham):
The principle at stake in this debate is that each asylum application should be assessed on its merits alone. It is the Opposition's contention that the inclusion of a country in the designated list will undermine such individual assessment by creating a presumption against the credibility of that asylum application from a national of a designated country. We have heard nothing from the Minister to allay those anxieties.
The Minister repeatedly said in Committee that each applicant will be treated to a substantive interview, irrespective of whether that applicant is from a designated country. It is unavoidable that a Home Office caseworker will conduct an interview with a designated applicant in the knowledge that a certificate has been issued with regard to that country, and as a consequence be more resistant to the asylum claim. Indeed, if the designated list did not create presumption against the claim, there would be no point in having it.
If a caseworker is in any doubt about the circumstances prevailing in a designated country, he or she will naturally consult the Home Office's country assessment. In relation to Pakistan, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has spoken, the caseworker will find the observation:
The Jubilee Campaign has produced extensive evidence of the continuing imprisonment of and widespread violence against Christians, their churches and their property--outrages often carried out with the connivance of the police and other authorities. I once again cite the US State Department report:
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton):
I hope that my croaking voice will last long enough to enable me to make one or two points, and that hon. Members will bear with me. I had not intended to speak, but the nonsense that I have heard from the Opposition has brought me to my feet.
One of the most serious immigration and asylum problems we face is the length of the queues for entry into this country. We agree that the shorter we can make those lists and the quicker we can make the process, the better it will be for everyone--not only the British citizens but those we are welcoming into the country under the immigration and asylum process.
It therefore seems eminently sensible that the Government should seek to determine whether there is any way in which it would be reasonable to speed up the entry procedure. They look and see that there are certain countries from which practically every application for asylum is turned down. We know the reasons for that, and it is in that direction that the Government look to speed up the system. They have done so by shortening and, to some extent, reducing the appeal procedure for applicants for asylum from those areas.
The Government have not abolished the appeal procedure, because there are still 10 days in which it can be used for appealing to the adjudicator, and judicial review is still available if there is a problem with the legality of any application. However, it seems eminently sensible that every reasonable effort should be made to shorten the queue in the area in which it will do least harm.
I quite agree with Opposition Members that the system must not prejudice an applicant's right to be properly considered. We have the assurance of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), and other Home Office Ministers that applications will not be prejudiced in any way. It is also obvious that an application from a listed country is not going to be limited in any sense prior to the point at which it is granted or refused. Applications will be fully considered, and every aspect of the arguments will be taken into account.
It does not seem to me to matter a jot whether there is or is not any presumption when an applicant comes from a suspect country, so long as the burden of proof does not change--and the burden of proof is not changing now.
While I was considering that point, I heard the preposterous argument--made in support of the Opposition's claim--that someone who was a friend and
supporter of the Prime Minister of Pakistan's father should want to come here as an asylum seeker, running from the daughter.
It is the same party, and has the same traditions. I do not think that there are many people, if any, who, having supported the Bhutto regime and opposed the ul-Haq regime, run away from the Bhutto regime, would come to this country having run away from the daughter. If there is any such person, for any reason, I am satisfied that the grounds for his or her application will be properly and sensibly considered.
There was a long rant from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I do not share Opposition Members' view in this debate that the Government's intention is to screw down and make totally impossible genuine asylum applications from people from those seven countries.
"There is no evidence of Government-led persecution of minorities".
In contrast, the United States State Department commented in its 1995 report on Pakistan human rights practices:
"Discriminatory religious legislation has encouraged an atmosphere of religious intolerance which has led to acts of violence against Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and Zikris."
I am pleased to see that, in the Home Office country assessment, applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given very careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Home Office assessment also states:
"Ahmadis are recognised as a religious group and rights are safeguarded under the constitution."
That is in totally contrast to the tone of the remarks of the retiring German ambassador to Pakistan, Mr. Alfred Vesting, who earlier this year wrote:
"Both the constitution and the penal code constitute the legal basis of the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, who, should they wish to profess or to practise their faith, must live in constant fear. Since they have been officially dubbed as heretics, they are in their daily life exposed to every possible repression and assault against which they cannot or dare not defend. Thus, they are, so to say, outlawed."
According to the Home Office:
"There is no systematic or Government-led persecution of Christians in Pakistan".
Nevertheless--this matter has already been referred to by, among others, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)--section 295(c) of the penal code introduced by the Pakistani Government in 1986 stipulates the death penalty for blaspheming the prophet Mohammed, and that provision has been used against Christians. Perhaps the best known case is that of Salamat and Rehmat Masih, both of whom have now--significantly--been granted asylum in the west.
"Among religious minorities there is a well-founded belief that the authorities afford them less legal protection than they afford Muslim citizens."
Contrary to the Home Secretary's claim, there is ample proof of the systematic persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan, and, at the very least, this Government have failed to make a case for including Pakistan in the designated list.
11.25 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |