§ 7. Mr. MaddenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received from the Foreign Secretary his decision supporting India as a candidate for designation as a country where there is in general no serious risk of persecution. [18988]
§ Miss WiddecombeIt is not the practice to disclose ministerial correspondence between Departments, but I can confirm that the proposal to designate India and the other six countries, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, represents the joint view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
§ Mr. MaddenIs it not extraordinary that the Government are so reluctant to reveal when the Foreign Secretary confirmed that India was to be a candidate for designation and that the Home Office and the Foreign Office have still not published the information on which that decision has been taken? Bearing in mind the reports of Amnesty International and Asia Watch that systematic and serious human rights violations are taking place in virtually every state in the Indian union, a popular insurrection has been under way in Kashmir since 1990 and serious human rights violations take place on an almost daily basis in Punjab, is that not an extraordinary scenario, in which neither the Home Secretary nor the Foreign Secretary can say that this is a country where there is no general risk of persecution?
§ Miss WiddecombeIt has never been the case that where a country is declared to be generally safe, we say that there is therefore no risk whatever to any individual within that country. We have made it clear, and I should like to make it clear again, that individual applications for asylum will be treated on their merits and that it will not be the case that, just because an applicant comes from a designated country, the application will therefore be refused in every circumstance. Even at the moment, from those countries from which we refuse a high percentage of applications—98 to 99 per cent.—a small number still get through. We would not expect that position to change.
Mr. Robert G. HughesWill my hon. Friend confirm that, while those who have a good case for asylum—even though their country is on the designated list—will be received into Britain as, rightly, they always have been, many of my constituents with ties and family in India will greatly resent the inference of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that India is not a friendly, democratic country and one with which we should have good relations?
§ Miss WiddecombeMy hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can only echo what he said. The designated list is designed to enable us to deal with countries that produce a large number of applications, of which a large percentage are found to be without foundation, and which are generally recognised as safe. That does not—I say this again because I do not want any misunderstanding on this point—negate the individual claimant's right to have his or her claim fully and properly considered.
§ Mr. KhabraI fully understand the concerns, rattlings and prejudice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about the Indian situation. Does the Minister agree that Pakistan's treatment of minorities is worse—the country that my hon. Friend blindly supports?
§ Miss WiddecombeI can only repeat that if individuals from Pakistan. India or any other country on the list can make a case that shows that they individually have a well-founded fear of persecution, they will be looked after according to our time-honoured tradition of being a haven.