The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Hywel
Williams
†
Aldous,
Peter (Waveney)
(Con)
†
Binley,
Mr Brian (Northampton South)
(Con)
†
Brake,
Tom (Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
†
Brown,
Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)
†
Burden,
Richard (Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
†
Crockart,
Mike (Edinburgh West)
(LD)
†
Evans,
Jonathan (Cardiff North)
(Con)
†
Green,
Damian (Minister for
Immigration)
†
Johnson,
Diana (Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
†
Keen,
Alan (Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
McCrea,
Dr William (South Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Mahmood,
Shabana (Birmingham, Ladywood)
(Lab)
†
Raynsford,
Mr Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
Rutley,
David (Macclesfield)
(Con)
†
Tredinnick,
David (Bosworth)
(Con)
†
White,
Chris (Warwick and Leamington)
(Con)
†
Wood,
Mike (Batley and Spen)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Jeremy (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Eliot Barrass,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 8
November
2010
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Draft
Asylum (First List of Safe Countries) (Amendment) Order
2010
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Immigration (Damian Green):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Asylum (First List of Safe
Countries) (Amendment) Order 2010.
It is a great
pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Williams.
The order will
add Switzerland to the first list of safe third countries set out in
part 2 of schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of
Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. The provision is concerned with situations
in which an asylum seeker may be removed to a safe third
country—that is, one of which he or she is not a national or
citizen—without substantive consideration of the asylum claim.
Countries in the first list of safe countries are presumed to be places
from which an asylum seeker will not be returned in breach of the
refugee convention or the European convention on human rights. Provided
that the Secretary of State is able to certify, therefore, that the
applicant is not a national or a citizen of the state listed, the
applicant may be removed to it and no right of appeal lies against the
decision on the grounds of the presumed or deemed safety. In other
words, the applicant cannot bring an appeal arguing that the country is
not safe. Applicants may resist their removal on other human rights
grounds in the usual way, although provision is made for such claims to
be certified as clearly unfounded unless we are satisfied that they are
not. If a claim is certified, any appeal may only be made outside the
United Kingdom.
The part 2
list currently includes all member states of the European Union and
Iceland and Norway, all of which are countries bound by the
arrangements for determining responsibility when examining an asylum
claim set down in EC regulation 343/2003, also known as the Dublin II
regulation, which determines which member state is responsible for
dealing with an asylum claim made within the EU or in another
participating country. Dublin II combats the problem of asylum shopping
in Europe by making one participating state—most often, though
not always, the first one that the asylum seeker entered or the one in
which he or she first claimed asylum—responsible for an asylum
applicant and allowing him or her to be returned there if he or she
tries to claim somewhere else. Since 2004, the Dublin regulation has
allowed us to remove a net total of more than 7,500 people to other
participating states. Switzerland has signed an agreement with the EU
allowing it to join the Dublin system and has been taking part in it
since December
2008.
The
UK Border Agency has considered research from a number of sources,
including reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees and
the US State Department, and has conducted its own country research. We
are satisfied that Switzerland has adequate procedures in place to
ensure that individuals will neither be exposed to persecution in
Switzerland itself, nor returned to their country of origin in breach
of the refugee convention. We therefore believe that it is appropriate
to make this order, which will allow us to operate the Dublin
regulation with Switzerland as effectively as
possible.
4.33
pm
Diana
Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab):
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams.
I do not
intend to detain the Committee for very long at all, but I seek a few
points of clarification from the Minister. First, the explanatory
memorandum refers to eight asylum seekers only being removed to
Switzerland since December 2008. Does the Minister have any other
figures for any other period, so that we can judge whether the figure
for removals to Switzerland is average, high or low?
Secondly, will
the Minister comment on the reference in the explanatory memorandum on
the fact that extensive research into the treatment of asylum seekers
in Switzerland was carried out by using objective materials and
information provided by the Swiss authorities? The Minister mentioned,
in his opening statement, some of the sources of that material, but
will he provide a complete list of all materials used?
Thirdly, will
the Minister assure the Committee that, with the strong regional nature
of Switzerland—with 26 cantons each having its own constitution,
legislature, government and courts—the national Government can
and will ensure that there are clear standards across the whole country
for the treatment of asylum seekers?
Finally, we
understand that this change will be subject to internal review
completed by the UK Border Agency. When will that review take place,
and will the results of that review be made available to the
public?
4.35
pm
Damian
Green:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions.
She makes the point that only eight asylum seekers have been removed to
Switzerland since December 2008. Of course, before December 2008,
Switzerland was not signed up to the Dublin convention, so the question
is not relevant, because we have been removing third-country nationals
to Switzerland only since it signed that convention. There is no
comparable period before December 2008, because we have been able to
remove third-country nationals to Switzerland only since
then.
The
hon. Lady is right in her general point that Switzerland tends not to
be one of the countries to which we return large numbers of people.
Other European countries are much more likely to be the first ports of
call for potential asylum shoppers, which is what the Dublin regulation
is designed to deal
with.
On
research, we have relied not only on our own internal research, but on
the UNHCR, which happens to be based in Switzerland and is particularly
well informed about what is going on. If the hon. Lady wants a more
detailed list, I will happily provide it. We have also
spoken to our embassy in Switzerland.
As she will know, the US State Department is assiduous in
compiling country reports, and we have relied on its information to a
certain extent. I confess that she is stretching the boundaries of my
knowledge of Swiss politics to its
limit.
David
Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con):
I am listening with great
interest, and I also listened with great interest to the hon. Lady. May
I assist my hon. Friend? The 26 cantons of
Switzerland—the oldest is, from memory, Schwyz—are not
states in themselves. In this case, the national Government of
Switzerland would be the correct channel for an adjustment to the
treaty. I am not sure that the 26 cantons have anything to do with it.
I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will come back on that, but I have
good experience of
Switzerland.
Damian
Green:
I am delighted to hear that, and I am grateful to
my hon. Friend for improving my knowledge of Swiss internal
administration. My understanding is that this is an area of Swiss
governance where the national Government set the policy. It is a
national
responsibility for the Swiss Government. Even with the hugely
decentralised system that the Swiss have, there is no evidence, not
only in theory, but more importantly in practice, that any canton is
any less safe than the others to return a third-country national
to.
The hon. Lady
asked about reviewing the situation. We keep all the countries on the
safe countries list under continuous review. I well remember, from
sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, that there are regular debates
when countries are added to the list and, therefore, in theory, taken
off it. I am happy to assure her that, if there is ever any sign that
Switzerland, or any other country, is no longer safe for the return of
third-country refugees, we would not be backward in acting. There would
be full consultation, and a parliamentary debate would be required. I
hope that she is reassured by those
answers.
Question
put and agreed
to.
4.39
pm
Committee
rose.