| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: I suggest that the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment because I believe it will save them a considerable number of future legal problems. I am reinforced in that point of view by paragraphs 15 to 18 of the paper from the UNHCR dated 15th October commenting on the Home Secretary's announcement of 7th October.
Lord Filkin: I shall go as far as I think it is prudent to go today, but I should like to look carefully at what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said when we consider Hansard. If I can go further I shall write to him.
In broad terms, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, technically there is no need for the amendment. The existing legislation prevents immigration rules being made in breach of the refugee convention. Similarly, the Human Rights Act prevents those rules being in breach of ECHR, since Section 6 would make the setting of rules which were incompatible with the convention rights an unlawful act.
The noble Earl reflected that this was a probing amendment, particularly concerned with situations where traumatised people had, for example, suffered torture in the past and might be removed from the United Kingdom should the general conditions in their country of origin improve.
On the first case where someone has refugee status and has been granted indefinite leave to remain, there are only limited circumstances where they can be removed under immigration powers. I do not think that they particularly relate to these sets of circumstances. Therefore, as the noble Earl implied, it is a question that focuses on a situation where someone has not been given refugee status under the 1951 convention, but has been given humanitarian protection and therefore exceptional leave to remain, which is, as the Committee knows, by definition for limited periods which can be removed.
It is possible that such leave might not be renewed when it has expired, as has been referred to in general terms. Whether or not it was renewed on the specific types of examples would, in the typical words, depend on the individual merits of the case. Where a person has suffered badly in a particular country, that would not of itself mean that he continues to be a refugee, but it would be a factor that would be taken into account when deciding whether it would be appropriate to grant further leave to remain. So much is obvious and what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would expect, but it would be a factor for consideration. However, perhaps he wants to press me further than that. I cannot give a categorical assurance that in all circumstances and all types of cases people would never be removed. On reflection, I cannot go that far—which does not mean that I will not be able to go further.
What I can say is that if people were at the end of their period of leave, it would be open to them to make the case in their application for further leave and to bring to the department's attention the history of their trauma and any relevant medical evidence that pointed to it. Without being categoric, that would automatically protect them; I suspect that that would be given most serious consideration. One would have to be aware of the convention's provisions and the protections that it implies and have good reason not to be seen to be flying in its face.
I do not want to go further than that tonight—not because I am being churlish but because I should like to consider the matter in detail and write to the noble Earl more precisely about the position, if that would be helpful. With that, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will bear with me for now—no doubt reserving his right to return to the matter later.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that answer. I understand that, in the circumstances, it was all that the Minister could give me. "Never" is, of course, a short time in politics. I am aware that people may want to take into account many other considerations. But, assuming no other factor creating any argument against the continuation of leave to remain and model conduct in the intervening time, I hope that those concerned could approach a case with at least a reasonable degree of confidence. I shall await the Minister's letter—his offer is much appreciated—with the same confidence in mind. I thank him for his care and trouble and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Regulations, &c.]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 15:
- Page 57, line 9, at end insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 16:
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. The two government amendments define the terms "asylum claim" and "human rights claim" for the purposes of Part 5. The definitions adopt the standard references to the UK's obligations under the Refugee Convention and adherence to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on acting compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. They also require the asylum or human rights claim to be made to the Secretary of State at a place designated by him. That is the requirement that the opposition amendments seek to debase.
The purpose of that requirement is simply to ensure that claims are made in person, so that proper contact is established between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the applicant and that present difficulties with postal claims are avoided. There are several examples of such difficulties, such as where a claim is made by post with no details of how to contact the claimant, which may lead to the ridiculous situation of an unresolved claim lying around indefinitely, or where we have a return address but the applicant never responds to our requests to attend a screening interview, with the result that we end up refusing claims of people we have never even seen and who may not even exist. Again, that is unsatisfactory.
I assure the Committee that sufficient sites will be designated to make it easy for a person to lodge their claim in person. There is the further issue that lodging the claim in person establishes the increased contact that is one of the underlying objectives of the Bill.
There is no intention to make it difficult for a person who wishes to make an asylum or human rights claim—far from it. We plan to have, by March 2003, a substantial number of screening sites in operation for in-country applicants. I shall rattle through the list: Croydon and other parts of London, Dover and various places in the south and south-west—for example, Portsmouth, Southampton, Poole, Bristol and Plymouth. I am not sure whether it will be all of those or whether those are illustrations; I will need to check. There will also be sites at Cardiff, Stansted and in Norfolk by the summer/autumn 2003; Birmingham and Northampton by the summer/autumn 2003; various sites in the North East—for example Sheffield, Leeds, Hull, Humberside, the Tees and the Tyne—Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast.
I hope that, given that coverage, the Committee will accept that it is not unreasonable to expect someone to attend in person.
Lord Dholakia moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 16A:
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister. He has answered several points that I was going to raise. However, there are still one or two points about which, I hope, he will give some further information.
We accept that the amendments are fairly technical. However, we want to probe the Government on the effect of demanding that a claim for asylum be made,
A person ought to be treated as having made an asylum or human rights claim in the UK wherever or however he or she makes it. In particular, those who express a fear of persecution must be treated as asylum claimants and should not face a further procedural hurdle, set up purely for the administrative convenience of the Home Office. The UK's obligations exist irrespective of how or when a person makes his or her asylum claim. No legal rights, including appeal rights, should be jeopardised on account of how or where an asylum claim is made. I beg to move.
"( ) An order under section 88(2C) or 107(9)—
(a) must be made by statutory instrument,
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, and
(c) may include transitional provision.
( ) An order under section 88(2D) or 107(10)—
(a) must be made by statutory instrument,
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) may include transitional provision."
Page 57, line 17, at end insert—
asylum claim" means a claim made by a person to the Secretary of State at a place designated by the Secretary of State that to remove the person from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention,"
9.30 p.m.
Line 2, leave out "at a place designated by the Secretary of State"
"at a place designated by the Secretary of State".
The Minister listed the places that are to be designated. We will examine the list, but it would be helpful to know how people will get to those places. Will funds be provided to allow them to travel there? What will happen to a person who asserts a need for protection at a port, including airside, or when picked up, for example, at the side of a motorway, having emerged from a lorry? Will such people be treated as asylum seekers between the moment that they assert a need for international protection and the time that they reach the designated place?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page