35. Memorandum submitted by
Chris Mullin MP
I am the Member of Parliament for Sunderland South,
the constituency in which Mr N and his family have lived for most
of the last four years. I was until May this year a Foreign Office
minister whose responsibilities included relations with Africa
and entry clearance. I am also a former chairman of the Home Affairs
Select Committee which has oversight of the Home Office and its
agencies, including the Immigration and Nationality Department.
By way of background I should perhaps explain
that I am generally supportive of the government's reform of the
asylum process. The one aspect with which I differ is as regards
the removal of children who have lived for much or all of their
lives in the UK to countries where the social fabric has disintegrated,
giving rise to the possibility that they face destitution on their
return. Angola is one such country.
Mr and Mrs N arrived in the UK on 22 April 2001
with their son G, then aged three and a half years. A second son,
E, was born in the UK on 31 August that year. Briefly, their story
is that Mr N deserted from the government army, was imprisoned,
escaped from a truckload of prisoners on their way to be executed,
made his way to the house of a distant relative who hid him for
several months while making arrangements for he and his family
to leave the country. Meanwhile government soldiers, searching
for Mr N, raided the home of his father. Not finding Mr N they
set about beating his wife with the buckle end of a belt in an
effort to make her disclose the whereabouts of her husband. To
this day Mrs N bears scars consistent with the events she describes
and the older boy who is blind in one eye—an injury which,
according to his mother, was caused when the buckle of the belt
with which she was being beaten caught G's eye. Following this
Mrs N and her son sought shelter in a church in Sonafe where she
remained for several months until a relative arranged for them
to leave the country. This is the story which, with minor discrepancies,
they have told since they arrived in the UK. The asylum adjudicator
chose not to believe them. I am inclined to, although I accept
that, at this distance, their story cannot be proved one way or
the other.
My primary interest, however, is in the fate
of the children. Although the 27-year civil war in Angola is over
the country is in ruins. Several million people remain displaced.
The government is unable to provide even the most basic services
for many of its citizens and where services do exist they are
mainly provided by foreign NGOs or UN agencies. Only about 50%
of children receive any form of schooling and Angola is ranked
third in the world for infant mortality. A considerable part of
the population, including many in the capital Luanda, are destitute
or live on the edge of destitution. Violence and lawlessness are
rampant. Justice is non-existent or arbitrary. What few functioning
institutions there are riddled with corruption. To take young
children who have tasted our life and who—in the case of
the younger boy—know no other life than ours and return
them to a life of destitution would in my view be an act of unpardonable
cruelty.
I remind the court that, according to his teachers
(see attached letter from Mrs W R) the older boy was traumatised
when he first attended school and only gradually came out of his
shell. This view is supported by the educational psychologist
who examined him in July this year who described him as "a
damaged and traumatised child who has, until now, blocked off
memories and who would appear to be continuing to deny many of
his past experiences . . . " She adds that he is "a
highly anxious child." As well he might be, given the fate
that now awaits him.
The principle that differential treatment should
be accorded to families with young children who have spent most
of their conscious lives in this country has already been conceded.
In October 2003 the Home Secretary announced an amnesty for families
who had been in this country for three years up to that date.
The N family have the bad luck to fall one year short of the deadline.
I believe there is a case for extending the amnesty.
I have one other concern. If we are to return
families to lawless or dysfunctional countries such as Angola,
I do not think it is good enough to simply drop them off at an
airport, wish them good luck and wave goodbye, which is effectively
what happens at the moment. Basic decency dictates that we should
ensure that they have enough money in their pockets to ensure
that they have at least a chance of re-integrating. Even the Hong
Kong government which, in the final months before the hand-over
to China, operated a ruthless system of repatriation of Vietnamese
refugees, gave each a small basic payment so that they had had
something in their pocket when they came off the plane at the
other end. The power to do this was inserted, at my suggestion,
in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (at Clause
58 (3)), but so far as I am aware only very limited use has been
made of these.
If we are to repatriate families to countries
such as Angola, there is in my view a strong case for the Home
Office to be required to satisfy itself that they have some means
of survival in the immediate aftermath of their return. This could
be done by make an arrangement with a non-governmental organisation
to help with the re-integration of repatriated families. Once
again, the principle has already been conceded. In the case of
the first failed asylum seekers—all single males—deported
to Afghanistan, arrangements were made for them to receive help
once they were back in their own country. If it can be done in
this case, it can be done in others. There has been talk for years
of enlisting the services of appropriate NGOs or the International
Organisation for Migration to help with repatriations. So far
as I am aware, however, little or nothing has come of this and
I do not believe anything will come of it unless the courts insist.
In the case of the N family, I invite the court
to rule that the forcible repatriation of these young children
to Angola where they face an unknown fate, after their having
lived in this country for so long, would be wrong under all circumstances.
Failing that, I invite the court to rule that
if children who have lived for all or most of their in this country
are to be forcibly repatriated to a country where they are at
risk of destitution their removal should be conditional upon adequate
arrangements being made for their reception and reintegration
on arrival.
16 December 2005
|
