| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords who have been kind enough to wish me well. I do not know about "springing about like a lamb"; it would nice just not to hobble to the Dispatch Box. I am sure that that will soon be the case.
I shall do my best to answer the questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked about the timeframe for the potential candidacy of Macedonia to the EU. I am sure the noble Lord did not believe that I would be able to talk in terms of years or months and years. However, we in this country fully support Macedonia's EU aspirations, and we believe that the implementation of the SAA will be the best and quickest way to take them forward on that road. We very much wish to help them in doing so and to clear the obstacles—some of which I referred to in my opening remarks.
In doing that and in helping with the implementation—another point raised by the noble Lord—perhaps I can give a little more detail. The Department for International Development has provided support to the sector for European integration office within the Macedonian Government, including training and advice on
Macedonia's obligations under Article 68 of the SAA. That article ensures that the laws of Macedonia are compatible with the laws of the EU.Future support for the sector for European integration will also include specialist legal training, which is obviously an important point. We shall give briefings to parliamentarians in a one-day session after the new government have formed, and that should take place during the course of the next week or so. DfID is also assisting central government with a programme of public administration reform, particularly for the general secretariat, the public administration reform unit and the civil service agency.
The scope of the project has been broadened to take account of demands placed upon the central government, following the signing of the framework agreement in August 2001. Therefore, as well as going through the EU, the UK is giving bilateral assistance. We are giving assistance on conflict prevention and balance of payments support. We are giving technical assistance in support of the framework agreement, which resolved last year's conflict, and a further £2 million of DfID assistance is being made available in various programmes.
Overall, the EU aid programme for Macedonia is in the order of 193.2 million euros between 2000 and 2004. I hope that that gives the noble Lord a little more detail about the practicalities of what we are trying to achieve in helping Macedonia forward on this road.
I believe that the warmth of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, about Macedonia will be very much appreciated by Macedonia's many friends in this country and, indeed, in the country itself. I agree strongly with what he said about NATO. NATO's Task Force Fox has played a significant role in consolidating peace and security in Macedonia. Of course, Task Force Fox will continue to offer international monitors the protection that they need until its mandate runs out on 15th December this year.
Similarly, I agreed with the point—it was not a trivial one—that the noble Lord made about the name of Macedonia. The United Kingdom recognises Macedonia as the Republic of Macedonia in our bilateral relations. We, like the noble Lord, hope that Greece and Macedonia will work together to find a solution to the dispute that has given rise to the point that the noble Lord raised about a sensible name for Macedonia in the future.
The noble Lord also raised issues relating to Croatia. I agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. Of course, the situation is disappointing. However, there was a difference of emphasis between my remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, and possibly those of the noble Lord, Lord Roper. In order for the signing of the SAAs to be a meaningful step, there must be some significance in singling out the potential candidates for the EU. General Bobetko is indicted for crimes committed, allegedly, as recently as 1994. That is not very long ago; those crimes occurred in recent memory and are still the cause of a great deal of anger, frustration and difficulty.
The ICTY is there for a purpose. It is supported by the United Kingdom, and we debated the legislation in support of the tribunal. I believe that it is incumbent upon us to require of those who put themselves forward as potential candidates for the EU that they abide by those fundamental principles, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, asked what the objectives were in taking forward that position. The objectives are peace, stability and prosperity for the region. In this instance, the objectives relate to Macedonia but, as I outlined, we hope that they will also apply to the other countries of the western Balkans as we proceed. If those countries wish to draw nearer to the EU, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, that they must draw closer mutually, as he indicated. If that is what the countries of the western Balkans want, then the stabilisation and association agreements provide the quickest way to achieve that objective. The noble Lord also talked about the rhetoric. He said that it was sometimes more reassuring but not necessarily terribly precise. I suspect that there is some truth in that.
The noble Lord commented on the European economies, on which I will not dwell. However, we encourage the Macedonian authorities to concentrate their efforts on economic reform. We hope that the new government will initiate negotiations with the IMF and reach agreement on a new standby arrangement as soon as possible. The noble Lord also raised the question of corruption. I should like to reassure him that the European Union is in constant dialogue with the Macedonian authorities through the EU special representative based in our embassy in Skopje on the issues concerning corruption and the ways in which it can be combated. The SAA should help because it contains provisions for an annual stabilisation and association council at which those issues will be discussed.
I agree with a great many of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lea. We hope that the SAAs will be a key to bringing Macedonia up to some of the European standards, of which we are all well aware. We also agree that there is a great deal of work ahead in doing that. However, the point made by the noble Lord about the need for our friends in Macedonia to have real ownership of a route map which takes them forward was well made and is well taken.
It is important that the Macedonian authorities work towards improving civil society representation. Again, our embassy in Skopje has fed into the commission the need to pursue that through the EU aid programme. I have indicated some of the ways in which that programme will be taking forward those issues. It is important that we keep relating those back to the development of the institutions of civil societies. The points I made were very much in line with the thrust of the report referred to by my noble friend.
I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I do not know about a score of 0-0. I found watching the match yesterday evening very exciting. The score line of 2-2 does not necessarily
indicate just how exciting it was. We can all hope that the Macedonian politicians now equit themselves as well as the Macedonian footballers did last night.We believe that the role of the European Union as a source of stability is vital for the future peace of the western Balkans. The SAAs are important building blocks working towards that. The Macedonian stabilisation and association agreement will serve as a strong message of European support to the wider regions. We very much hope that this will act as an example and a catalyst to other countries in the region. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn during pleasure until 9.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.4 to 9.15 p.m.]
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 14:
- Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause—
The noble Earl said: This is a probing amendment and would have been at whatever time of day it was moved. I have explained its purpose to the Minister. It concerns the remarks made by the Home Secretary in his article in The Times on 7th October about exceptional leave to remain. He said that it should be granted more sparingly.
The Home Secretary made no reference to those who already enjoy exceptional leave to remain, which is granted for limited periods and is renewable. Nevertheless, it has created a considerable degree of alarm among those who have exceptional leave to remain and hope to integrate themselves into this country. I believe that such alarm is unnecessary and I hope that the Minister can assure me further to that effect.
For the case that I want to argue I rely on the preparatory articles of the UN convention and the UN convention handbook. I am perfectly well aware that places from which refugees have come that have been unsafe may in the future become safe. I am aware that people may want to return and that some have returned, but in the words of the convention itself, in preparatory Article C(5),
However, I am concerned about the proviso in the convention which states:
That is expounded further in the UN handbook which states:
It is argued in the handbook that it should apply to those who have special protection of any sort and not just to those who are formally recognised as refugees.
The assurance for which I hoped is that no one will be required to repatriate in those circumstances. If he and his immediate family have been the victims—in the word of the convention—of atrocious persecution, if they wish to return that is a quite different matter. But it is well-recognised that having been the victim of atrocious persecution may produce a sense of trauma which makes return to the scene of the persecution a genuinely unbearable experience.
I have one friend who got out of Germany in 1939 at the age of two and a half. She tells me she can still to this day no longer pass through Aachen station without being physically sick.
It is that kind of situation I have in mind, where members of the family have been killed, where there has been, say, a home destroyed and burned and people forcibly driven out with members of the family missing, presumed killed. In these circumstances I do not believe that the Home Secretary will require anyone with exceptional leave to remain to leave this country and return to the scene of any such persecution.
I have given those assurances to people who have asked me for them. I should like the Minister to confirm that I was right to do so. I ask this in hope and in confidence. I beg to move.
"IMMIGRATION RULES
( ) Nothing in the immigration rules shall lay down any practice, which would be contrary to the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention and in particular nothing shall lay down any practice which would lead to the refusal or revocation of limited leave to remain where this would be contrary to the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention."
"circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist",
and therefore he can,
"continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality".
"Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this Article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality".
That also applies to Article C(6) with which at present we are not concerned.
"The cessation clauses are negative in character and are exhaustively enumerated. They should therefore be interpreted restrictively, and no other reasons may be adduced by way of analogy to justify the withdrawal of refugee status. Needless to say, if a refugee, for whatever reasons, no longer wishes to be considered a refugee, there will be no call for continuing to grant him refugee status".
Please forgive these quotations but they are to the point.
"Article 1C does not deal with the cancellation of refugee status".
That deals with the point.
"The exception, however, reflects a more general humanitarian principle, which could also be applied to refugees other than statutory refugees. It is frequently recognized that a person who—or whose family—has suffered under atrocious forms of persecution should not be expected to repatriate. Even though there may have been a change of regime in his country, this may not always produce a complete change in the attitude of the population, nor, in view of his past experiences, in the mind of the refugee".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page