§ `Where it appears to the Secretary of State that conditions in a country outside the United Kingdom render it impracticable for a person to seek leave to enter the United Kingdom or otherwise to travel to the United Kingdom then the Secretary of State shall make arrangements in that country or in an adjoining country for persons to be able to claim asylum in the United Kingdom in a like manner to persons arriving in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, after 'removed', insert
'or refused leave to enter, or refused entry clearance'.No. 2, in page 1, line 11 after 'from', insert 'or to'.
§ Mr. AllenI like it when I hear Conservatives using the word "bogus" because, as hon Members who served on the Committee will know, nothing was more bogus than their arguments about how much they cared about political asylum-seekers. In Committee, the debate made it obvious that the Bill was designed to make it harder for people to seek political asylum, rather than easier. This talk about bogus needs to be put back in the kennel where it belongs, with the Conservative claim about being caring.
The only bogus part of our debates in Committee was the Conservatives' attempt to paint every individual who seeks refuge and succour in our land as some sort of social security scrounger. They argued by taking a case and extrapolating from it the thousands of people seeking refuge here, perhaps from Bosnia. They tainted such people with the claim that they are trying to twist and turn and manipulate the system and put in multiple applications for social security. That is what bogus conjures up in my mind and that of my colleagues who fought the Bill, line by line, in Committee.
The other interesting argument that we are now getting from the Home Secretary is the almost intellectual point about the grey area between bogus applicants—that is, those with no claim whatsoever—and people who are genuinely seeking asylum here. We need to have a genuine intellectual debate on that point, which is why the argument is so appealing to Labour Members. Sadly, the House of Commons and its Committees are not structured so that we can have that debate properly, but there is a genuine debate about how we define categories of people who do not immediately, technically, fall into the political asylum seekers sector—for example, those who are fleeing from famine or civil war. That is a debate that did not take place in Committee. The issue was not debated on Second Reading and nor will it be debated this evening. It is a debate that will have to take place in a forum that takes itself rather more seriously than, sadly, the Committee did on several occasions.
We contrast the vision that is being offered by the Home Secretary of a genuine discussion on how we categorise those people who are in the middle, as it were, with the practice of the Conservative Government. I do not have the sheaf of press cuttings from which I quoted on Second Reading, but it was possible for me to close my eyes and pick any headline from about 20 from The Sun, the Star and other newspapers. They were headlines such as "Don't let them in" and "Keep them out". That was the sort of nonsense that was pumped out by the Home Secretary's predecessor. There is now a slightly more intellectual feel about the arguments. I am sure that my hon. Friends will make it clear that much of the Bill owes its origins more to the pending leadership contest within the Conservative party than to a genuine effort to try to help those who are seeking political asylum in our country.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of who is genuine can often mean life or death to those who are actually involved? Surely it is important that the organisation that used to be the refugee unit of the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service, and which is now the refugee legal centre—perhaps not all Conservative Members will agree with this but I am sure that it will find the agreement of most hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber is recognised as one that does a good job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if, given the 647 short time that is allowed for appeals and other factors, the refugee legal centre found that it was not in a position to carry out a thorough investigation into whether an individual claim was genuine?
§ Mr. AllenMy hon. Friend speaks with great experience of these matters and Ministers would do well to heed his advice. The organisations that have been involved, especially the UKIAS, have suffered from a degree of internal dissension which has not been helpful. I hope that those days are passed and that every support will be given by the Government to the refugee legal centre and other bodies. I hope, too, that they are given adequate resources and time to pursue individual cases in the way that my hon. Friend would wish.
Long after this measure has been repealed people will remember 1992 in immigration and asylum terms, not for an ill-fated Bill but for the shameful way in which the Government responded to the crisis in Bosnia. It is laughable that only 150 people were initially allowed into the United Kingdom so as to escape from that conflict. It is barely more credible that now just 1,000 people are to be allowed into the country. Of course, the Government have the support of those who are seeking to bump up the numbers to a monumental 4,000. Even the Government admit that the crisis in Bosnia has produced 3 million displaced persons. It defies belief that our country can assist its European partners to the extent of taking in only 4,000 people, or 1,000 and their dependants, when other nations have done so much more. I find it especially shameful that the Austrian Government had to bail out the British Conservative Government when they refused to allow the 173 people who were trapped on the border to be assisted by Leeds Alert. They were taken into Austria to be looked after. That is one of the reasons that caused us to table the clause.
The clause seeks to extend the possibilities for those who are seeking political asylum to pursue that course legally. I am greatly surprised that the Government have said that they will oppose the clause as it is written or as it could be amended if they are dissatisfied with its present wording.
§ Mr. MaddenMy hon. Friend has referred to Bosnian nationals being received in the United Kingdom. I have received a reply today from the Under-Secretary of State to the effect that so far only 79 former detainees from Bosnia have been received in this country. Apparently they arrived on 17 December. There is no sign of when the remaining 1,000 are to arrive. It could be months or possibly years before we see their arrival. Will my hon. Friend confirm that another reply to a question indicates that 29 former Yugoslav nationals were refused leave to enter and were removed from the United Kingdom? They applied to come here as visitors. The Minister does not know to where they have been returned. Surely that must be a matter of considerable concern.
§ Mr. AllenMy hon. Friend was tireless in his efforts in Committee and on the Floor of the House to highlight the difficulties faced by those who are suffering persecution in Bosnia. I commend his work to the House, and am glad to put that on the record.
648 It is pathetic—it would be laughable if it were not so tragic—that a mere 79 people from Bosnia have been allowed into our country to escape the evils of the regimes that are persecuting them directly and personally. I understand from my own sources that the 1,000 political asylum seekers that the Government have now agreed to take into the country may not arrive in the United Kingdom before the end of the summer. Only 1,000 people will be rescued from the conflict and the persecution that they face in the next seven or eight months following the imposition of the visa regime. That is deplorable. We need the new clause, or something like it, so that there is a legal means by which individual claims can be assessed in extreme, urgent and difficult circumstances in the country of origin.
That is not something that would have to be done in every instance. I find it difficult to contemplate examples other than those that replicate actual instances in Bosnia. It would have been fortunate—it would have been the only fortunate feature of the conflict—if we had had three or four officials from the immigration department of the Home Office on the border in Bosnia to process claims. That did not happen and the Minister was not prepared to travel to Bosnia. The Government were not prepared to send a small contingent of Home Office officials to Bosnia. All that demonstrates to the entire world how seriously the Government were taking the plight of people in Bosnia.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. AllenI am happy to give way to an hon. Member who is one of the closest in the House, in terms of his constituency, to our continental partners. I have no doubt that he will have something to say about the cross-border controls that still apply at the port of Dover.
§ Mr. BrazierI take a particular interest in another conflict about which comparatively little is published, and that is in the Lebanon. When we consider what is going on in the Lebanon, in Nagorno Karabakh, in Cambodia and in Afghanistan, the only difference between those events and those in Bosnia is that the conflict in Bosnia appears on our television screens. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, however well meaning the clause is, the scale of the applications that would ensue would be unbelievably high? Does he expect the terms of the clause to appear in a future Labour party manifesto?
§ Mr. AllenIf the hon. Gentleman reads the clause, he may be assisted. He might then understand what we are talking about. It begins:
Where it appears to the Secretary of Statethat it is impractical for certain things to happen. In other words, the clause, if it were accepted, would not apply in all circumstances. It would probably not be appropriate in the circumstances that apply in the Lebanon.In Bosnia, as I attempted to explain earlier I shall have another go and take it more slowly—we saw a situation in which it was physically possible to have a small team of Home Office officials somewhere near the border of Bosnia. That would be an emergency response, and it would be made only if the Home Secretary considered it to be appropriate. It would not be a regular response. It would avoid, however, a situation which the Government precipitated in the context of the Leeds Alert episode. A 649 number of people on the border wanted to make a claim for political asylum, but there was nowhere in Bosnia to register it.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)Of course there was.
§ Mr. AllenThat is true—but to do so those people would have had to fight their way back through the lines of the advancing Serbian infantry. They would have had to go back to Sarajevo or Belgrade, risking life and limb. They were emaciated, they had come out of camps and many had medical conditions. What sort of Government would put people through that, especially given the suffering that they had already endured?
In fact, those people were quite fortunate because Leeds Alert was to hand. It drove to Vienna to get the necessary application forms and it then drove back to Bosnia so that they could be filled out. It then drove trans-Europe to London because that was the only place where the forms would be accepted. They were lodged with the Home Office, which kept Alert on a string for several days. Finally, it refused 169 and accepted just four applications.
Had the Government really wanted to help in that emergency they would not have delayed the decisions. Then, even if the eventual outcome was the same, at least those individuals whose applications were not accepted would have been put out of their misery at a much earlier stage. That would have demonstrated a caring approach and shown that the Government were serious about wanting to help the asylum seekers. Instead, the Government had Mr. Beasley, Mr. Lamb and others dodging around, jumping through hoops and over obstacles, just to delay the decision on the political asylum applications.
§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman too much, but I had hoped that he would respond fully to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that my hon. Friend would comment on the frontier controls still being enforced at the port of Dover. My hon. Friend's constituency has no sea frontier, but I have the adjacent seat which does have a channel coast port. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should abandon our frontier controls?
§ Mr. AllenI apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I met his former agent on the first cross-channel ferry into Britain on 1 January and I obviously confused my facts. It was an entertaining evening. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I shall say that the reason that I was on that ferry was that the need to show a passport was abolished on that day. Sadly, Herr Bangemann—and perhaps I should say head Bangemann—the Home Secretary strongly disagreed on removing the requirement to show passports at borders. The embarrassing incident of the arrest of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on immigration and asylum was avoided by the deft footwork of some Customs officers, who waved through the coach on which a number of Conservative colleagues from the European Parliament and myself were travelling. I had expected at least to be asked to show my passport, but the officers could not get the coach off the ferry and through 650 Customs quickly enough. I am still not sure about the position of those who travel abroad and return through Dover. Until the Home Secretary can answer that question, it is not for me to bail him out.
§ Mr. BrazierWhat are the hon. Gentleman's views?
§ Mr. AllenIt is my view that it would assist those seeking political asylum in this country if, in an emergency such as that in Bosnia, there was a facility in the relevant country where people could discuss their applications and their needs. That would prevent the sort of nonsense that happened with Leeds Alert.
I am not saying that the wording of the new clause is perfect. If the Minister gives me the nod, I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree to withdraw it so that it could be worded appropriately. The problem is that for those wanting political asylum in the United Kingdom, the Government are virtually insisting that they break the law. At the very least, someone, somewhere, has to be deceived. It is not possible to obtain political asylum abroad and bring it into the United Kingdom. An asylum seeker has to get to the United Kingdom by some means before he can make a claim. Therefore, by definition, he would have arrived here by a route that probably was not an honest route. For example, such a person would have to pretend to be a visitor or something else before he could land and say, "I claim political asylum."
The new clause would legitimise individuals who go through due process, not necessarily at the port of entry but in extreme circumstances—such as those in Bosnia —in their own countries. I can only repeat that such an arrangement would be extraordinary rather than the norm. It appears that with the Bosnian problem the Government have—perhaps in pursuit of their privatisation policy—subcontracted to the United Nations and the Red Cross the decision on those who may be allowed in to this country. They have been given their tender contract —1,000 people over the next six to nine months. If that time scale is inaccurate, perhaps the Minister would correct me.
It is possible that those two organisations, which are under great pressure in other areas, may nominate people who the Home Office may not regard as satisfactory and who may not meet the criteria. Perhaps they have not been in a camp for long enough, perhaps they have not lost sufficient numbers of relatives, or perhaps they have not suffered sufficient deprivation to qualify for the magical figure of 1,000 out of the 3 million people who have been displaced. In many ways, that is a failure of the European dimension as operated by the Government throughout their presidency. They did not make an adequate response to the Bosnian problem. Grey-suited men waited for photocalls in various European capitals, unable to make any impact on the Bosnian crisis. There was no genuine burden sharing, either in terms of the numbers of refugees coming out of those strife-torn areas or in making a proper financial settlement for those countries that took a greater share of the burden.
§ Mr. MaddenMy hon. Friend referred to visa applications from former Yugoslav nationals. In a reply today, the Foreign Office Minister said that
we are monitoring the effect of the visa regime on former Yugoslav nationals on the visa sections at Belgrade, Vienna, Zagreb, Budapest, Sofia, Rome, Milan, Florence, Naples, 651 Dusseldorf and Paris. At these posts 1,715 applications were received from former Yugoslav nationals—1,251 were granted, 238 were refused and 203 have a decision pending.Can my hon. Friend confirm that, if clause 9 is passed, the 238 who have been refused will have no right of appeal—like the thousands of others who, in the coming months, undoubtedly will also be refused—against those arbitrary decisions?
§ Mr. AllenI have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot confirm that because I do not know. I listened very carefully, as did my hon. Friend, to the Minister's remarks in Committee—but the more that I re-read Hansard, the more confused I became, and I imagine the more confused will be individuals who want to exercise a right of appeal, if they are allowed to do such a thing. I would like the Minister to answer my hon. Friend's question because I believe that clause 9 and the rest of the Bill will not allow such people to appeal.
6 pm
The Bill's failure to make provision for people from abroad to apply in emergency circumstances will make life harder for those seeking political asylum. If it appears that people are reaching our country, the Bill introduces other, administrative obstacles. If those obstacles are overcome, the Bill imposes a visa regime. Where a visa regime is imposed, the Bill makes it difficult for it to be implemented by forcing people to go across Europe to obtain and to complete forms.
We want to ensure justice for those people who, in Bosnia-type situations, have suffered, been abused, held captive, and deprived of the basics of human life. New clause 2—modest as it is and however imperfectly it may be worded—would give a sign. Rather than the sign that, the Government usually put up to people seeking our help and aid, it would give a sign that where circumstances permitted, it would be appropriate to send one or two people from the Home Office to vet claims and to allow applicants either to enter our country for political asylum or to tell them, "We are sorry, but you do not qualify."
The fact that, as we understand it, the Government are not prepared to entertain new clause 2 in any form indicates the truth about their concern for those seeking political asylum—it just does not exist.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)Clearly, new clause 2 is prompted by the political situation in the former Yugoslavia and the difficulties experienced by many people from that country in seeking political asylum in Britain. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who also led for Labour in Committee, spoke for many when he pointed out the unconscionable embarrassment that Britain has faced because of the small part that it played in dealing with the consequences of the fighting in the former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia in particular.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman also thinks that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to achieve his purposes because, as new clause 2 proposes, it would be possible for facilities to be made available in Vienna, other border towns of Austria or southern Germany, or in neighbouring countries, to evaluate applications and to determine whether Britain is prepared to play its part in providing a haven for those displaced.
652 New clause 2 attempts to tackle both the problem or asylum and that alluded to in the earlier debate, to which the Home Secretary made some reply—those people who do not strictly fall within the provisions of the convention but whom it would be reasonable for Britain to seek to offer a home.
The clear sense of making such a provision close to the ground—close to Bosnia—is emphasied by the experiences we have witnessed at the border and the Leeds Alert case. It seems unlikely that many people in the countries in question will look to the United Kingdom for relief, given our record of dealing with such applications over the past year.
Figures made available to me by the Library's research department show that between January and November this country received a mere 4,830 applications for asylum from the former Yugoslavia, refused 110,000, and granted asylum to none. That suggests a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Home Office for tackling the problem directly, and the belief that if we show ourselves to be tardy in dealing with applications, they will simply disappear.
It is not good enough for Britain, as a member of the European Community, to land the problem in the lap of countries neighbouring the strife—for that is the practical consequence of Home Office policy and why tens of thousands are leaving the former Yugoslavia and arriving in countries such as Germany, which is hard pressed by the adherence of the eastern zone to the republic, and Austria, which is a very small country.
The policy pursued by the British Government is positively dangerous not only for those countries which are receiving refugees but to the whole of Europe. It has undoubtedly strengthened the fear of foreign influx, where that influx has been large. If we look at the totality of the picture during the period to which I referred, the number granted asylum in this country from all over the world was a mere 1,040. That compares with 17,270 refused applications.
Britain is not a country to which refugees would look for a haven in the times in which we live. It is striking, particularly if one considers the state of African countries languishing under dictatorships and tyrannies, how in many cases we have simply turned away all applications. It is open to question whether, if more were known, those applicants would be eligible for asylum status. On the face of it, one must take the view that it is the Government's policy strongly to discourage applications for asylum from abroad.
Although the Government will undoubtedly refuse to accept new clause 2, saying that it is not strictly necessary —and, in a purely legal sense, it is not—I hope that they will indicate how they propose to share the burden, particularly with other European countries, of offering relief to those from the former Yugoslavia who are able to enter the other countries of the European Community. I hope that the Government will also tell us whether they are prepared to reconsider the exiguous numbers to whom they have undertaken to offer room and the criteria on which they will determine which cases to accept.
Many people in this country believe that what is being done in their name to tackle the problem is wholly inadequate. They believe that it is stoking up trouble and making more likely disturbance and civil strife in other, at present more peaceful, parts of Europe. This is a matter of great urgency and in tabling new clause 2 the Labour party 653 has given the Government an opportunity to demonstrate that their views have advanced somewhat since the Christmas recess.
§ Mr. Charles WardleAs I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I found it hard to repress a wave of nostalgia for the time that we spent in Committee. There he was, rambling up hill and down dale without touching too frequently on the subject in hand.
When he discussed asylum applications, the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the fact that some 75 per cent. of asylum-seekers apply after they have entered this country. I hope that he is not suggesting that the great majority of those applicants arrive as bogus visitors; many arrive as genuine visitors and then apply for asylum.
The hon. Gentleman talked of his adventures on new year's eve and new year's day. He forgot to tell the House that, at Dover, an inspector—an immigration officer—boarded his coach, asked whether everyone on board was an EC citizen and then got off the coach. Immigration controls were clearly in place.
§ Mr. AllenIt is true that a gentleman boarded the coach; but he asked whether everyone was having a good time.
§ Mr. WardleI do not wish to malign the hon. Gentleman, but it is possible that he was having such a good time that he did not hear the rest of the sentence which, I am sure, was pronounced by the immigration officer.
As the House will of course be aware, on 1 January there were no changes in controls at ports of entry in any EC country. If the hon. Gentleman had taken himself to Rome, Brussels or anywhere else in the Community that day, he would have found that that was the case.
§ Mr. MaddenIf any members of the party on the coach had admitted that they were not EC nationals, what would the immigration officer have done?
§ Mr. WardleHe would have wanted to ascertain their identity. Having done so, he would have exercised the appropriate controls. Had any such person proved to be a genuine non-EC national, the controls would have followed the pattern that they follow at every port of entry in regard to non-EC nationals—a pattern that will continue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to our record in the former Yugoslavia. He mentioned the 79 arrivals—helped by an intervention by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). It should be borne in mind that we rely on the UNHCR and the International Red Cross to pick out the cases that come to this country; the UNHCR selected the 79 and their dependants and will continue to send us further groups in the months to come.
The passion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) can never be doubted, but his logic sometimes defies belief. He referred to the role played by this country in Yugoslavia. I hope that he did not mean to slight the efforts of our soldiers, medical teams and technicians to deal with the terrible conflict in that country. He seemed to suggest, however, that the Germans, the Austrians and others had made a political decision to take the large numbers that had arrived, and that simply is not true. Perhaps 600,000 people have 654 arrived in Germany as a result of that terrible conflict, but that was not the consequence of a political decision: they just turned up there.
6.15 pm
Both new clause 2 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to broaden the United Kingdom's current international obligations to asylum seekers by including references to entry clearance procedures. The 1951 convention imposes obligations on signatory states in relation to refugees on their territory or at their borders. There is no obligation to allow refugees a free hand to choose where in the world they would like to live. New clause 2 seeks to put asylum seekers who are not in the United Kingdom—and thus have not engaged our obligations to afford protection—on the same footing as those who have arrived here. That would distort the concept of asylum, as understood within the terms of the Geneva convention, into just another category of immigration.
§ Mr. MaclennanThe Minister mentioned logic earlier. What is the logic of his argument about whether or not the German Government sought to give asylum to 600,000 people? Is not it a fact that those people are there and that our country is a fellow member of the European Community? The Minister is simply not addressing our duty to deal with the problem.
§ Mr. WardleIt is the hon. Gentleman's logic that is faulty. Is he suggesting that because 600,000 people have arrived, without the express invitation of the German Government, to add to the large Yugoslav community in that country, every other country should take the same action? If so, he is ignoring agreements reached within the international community, and recommendations made by the UNHCR and the International Red Cross.
The hon. Gentleman said that the applications of the nearly 5,000 former Yugoslays who applied for asylum in this country last year had not been resolved. Perhaps, in that context, he will understand the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve a similar result to that of new clause 2 by including an entry clearance application in the definition of an asylum claim. It also seeks to include the ground that a refusal of leave to enter would breach our convention obligations. That is an unnecessary addition; removal following a refusal of leave to enter is the action that could breach our convention obligations and that is already provided for adequately in the wording of clause 1.
§ Mr. AllenThe Minister seems to, find no difficulty in meeting our international partners through the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers, the Trevi group, and the Schengen group—although we are not a member of that group, we receive information from it. He has no problem in negotiating arrangements such as harmonised visa and border controls. Why can he not, in the same fora, meet our European colleagues and negotiate a proper settlement for people who seek political asylum—either by sharing the burden of the numbers that we accept, or by sharing the financial contribution?
§ Mr. WardleAs the hon. Gentleman knows, we are playing a part in the international community. As was said many times in Committee, we are also turning to the experts—that is, the UNHCR—for precisely that purpose. We do not want, however, to see movement on a scale that would give way to the evil goal of ethnic cleansing.
§ Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham)rose—
§ Mr. WardleThe hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) will understand that I wish to make progress. He will then, no doubt, want to listen to the reply of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.
§ Mr. WardleHow can I resist the hon. Gentleman's entreaties?
§ Mr. GrantI thank the Minister for being so kind as to give way on this matter. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will be referred to constantly in the Minister's speeches, so can he settle this matter once and for all? Does he agree that the UNHCR is not an independent body, as he claims, but that it comes under the United Nations and is accountable to the Security Council, of which Britain, France and the United States are permanent members? When the Minister refers to the UNHCR, therefore, he is talking about an organisation that is the servant of the United Nations and a lackey of the British Government.
§ Mr. WardleThe hon. Gentleman has skilfully introduced a point that he made frequently in Committee —his views about the United Nations generally and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in particular. He is right that the UNHCR is an arm of the United Nations. We, and the international community generally, regard the UNHCR as the experts on the ground who can make the decisions that really matter for the Bosnians.
The simple fact is that we must inevitably take a different approach to asylum seekers in this country from those who have found safety in other countries and from those who might at some point have a claim to refugee status but who have not yet left their own countries. The United Kingdom cannot be the guarantor of every individual around the world who might fear persecution. We cannot undertake to evacuate everyone who claims to be in danger and to bring them here.
The Geneva convention was very sensible and practical in its limitation of the definition of refugees to those who are already outside their own country. That does not mean that the international community has no interest in what happens to people in their own country. Major humanitarian efforts have often been made to assist the internally displaced, such as those in Bosnia, in those circumstances, but to hold out the prospect of emigration as a refugee, with no need to move or interrupt one's normal life while the application is considered, seems, in the real world of migratory pressures and strict immigration controls, to encourage unfounded applications and misuse.
At present, we consider outside the normal immigration rules all applications that we receive for entry clearance to come here to claim asylum. The criteria that we apply are that the person is prima facie a refugee within the terms of the 1951 convention and that the United Kingdom is a more appropriate country of refuge than where the person is. I am sure that this is the right approach. It enables us to respond to cases where links with this country clearly make it right that the person should come here, but it does not open up a formal channel that would be open to misuse. No other European country adopts an approach 656 that is significantly different from ours. The proposed amendments would be likely to add substantially to the number of applications that we receive.
The particular example of refugees from the former Yugoslavia has already been debated extensively. The availability of procedures of the sort proposed in new clause 2 would make it more rather than less difficult to deal with that matter in a coherent way. It is not practicable for everyone who might be at risk, or who might claim to be at risk, in the former Yugoslavia, or anywhere else, to come to this country, but in making our contribution to the international response to that terrible conflict we are working with the UNHCR to identify those humanitarian cases that it would make sense to bring to this country. As the House knows, I announced on 30 November that we were prepared to receive up to 1,000 ex-detainees and their dependants, which will amount to about 4,000 people.
§ Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green)I noted with interest what the Minister said about the close working relationship that the Government have with the UNHCR. If that relationship is so good, why did the Minister resist the pleas of the Opposition for the UNHCR handbook to be incorporated in the Bill?
§ Mr. WardleBecause there is no need for it to be incorporated in the Bill. That does not mean that the handbook is disregarded, as I reminded the hon. Lady in Committee and seek to do now.
We are ready to consider in the normal way any applications for entry clearance that we receive from individuals, as well as those put forward by UNHCR. I repeat that the Government remain ready to consider applications from abroad to come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum. I am convinced, however, that we should not create a new immigration channel for that purpose, as new clause 2 seeks to do. Instead, we should continue to deal with those applications on a discretionary basis, outside the normal immigration rules. That, together with a readiness to work with the international organisations to find solutions to refugee-producing situations, seems to me to be the proper and practical approach and the one that is most likely to produce a helpful outcome. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject new clause 2.
§ Mr. AllenBy leave of the House, may I say in reply that by tabling new clause 2 we have attempted to open up the debate and to allow the Government to show whether they really want to assist genuine political refugees who are in absolutely appalling circumstances. There is an almost unique set of circumstances in Bosnia. Had we been able to send people to Bosnia to assist them in making their applications—and to reject, where necessary, their applications—we should have been in a position to do some good. By tabling the new clause and probing the Government to find out whether they were prepared to seek a solution to the problem of political asylum seekers, we were hoping for a good response. Sadly, we have received the response that we expected. The Government have rejected our overtures to find better ways to help asylum seekers.
The same applies to the grey area between those who are so obviously political asylum seekers and those who are so obviously not—the victims of civil war, famine and so on. It is apparent that that grey area needs to be looked at by a new Government. As the Conservative 657 Government have refused even to consider the possibility of helping genuine political refugees, we intend to press the new clause to a Division.
§ Questions put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 295.
660| Division No. 105] | [6.27 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Faulds, Andrew |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Allen, Graham | Flynn, Paul |
| Alton, David | Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Foulkes, George |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Fraser, John |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Fyfe, Maria |
| Austin-Walker, John | Gapes, Mike |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Garrett, John |
| Barnes, Harry | George, Bruce |
| Battle, John | Gerrard, Neil |
| Bayley, Hugh | Godsiff, Roger |
| Beckett, Margaret | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Gordon, Mildred |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Benton, Joe | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Berry, Dr. Roger | Gunnell, John |
| Betts, Clive | Hain, Peter |
| Blair, Tony | Hall, Mike |
| Boateng, Paul | Hanson, David |
| Boyce, Jimmy | Hardy, Peter |
| Bradley, Keith | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) | Henderson, Doug |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Heppell, John |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Burden, Richard | Hinchliffe, David |
| Byers, Stephen | Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) |
| Caborn, Richard | Home Robertson, John |
| Callaghan, Jim | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) | Hoyle, Doug |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Clapham, Michael | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Clelland, David | Hutton, John |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Illsley, Eric |
| Cohen, Harry | Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) |
| Connarty, Michael | Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Jamieson, David |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Janner, Greville |
| Corbett, Robin | Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) |
| Cousins, Jim | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) |
| Cox, Tom | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Cryer, Bob | Keen, Alan |
| Cummings, John | Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Khabra, Piara S. |
| Dafis, Cynog | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Dalyell, Tam | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn) |
| Darling, Alistair | Leighton, Ron |
| Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Lewis, Terry |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Denham, John | Lynne, Ms Liz |
| Dewar, Donald | McCartney, Ian |
| Dixon, Don | Macdonald, Calum |
| Dobson, Frank | McFall, John |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | McKelvey, William |
| Dowd, Jim | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | McLeish, Henry |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Maclennan, Robert |
| Enright, Derek | McMaster, Gordon |
| Etherington, Bill | Madden, Max |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Mandelson, Peter |
| Fatchett, Derek | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Maxton, John | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Michael, Alun | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Short, Clare |
| Milburn, Alan | Simpson, Alan |
| Miller, Andrew | Skinner, Dennis |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Morley, Elliot | Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E) |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Mudie, George | Snape, Peter |
| Mullin, Chris | Soley, Clive |
| Murphy, Paul | Spearing, Nigel |
| O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) | Spellar, John |
| O'Brien, William (Normanton) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| O'Hara, Edward | Stevenson, George |
| Olner, William | Stott, Roger |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| Pendry, Tom | Straw, Jack |
| Pickthall, Colin | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Pike, Peter L. | Tipping, Paddy |
| Pope, Greg | Turner, Dennis |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Vaz, Keith |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) | Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Wallace, James |
| Prescott, John | Walley, Joan |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Wareing, Robert N |
| Purchase, Ken | Watson, Mike |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Radice, Giles | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Redmond, Martin | Wilson, Brian |
| Reid, Dr John | Winnick, David |
| Robertson, George (Hamilton) | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Roche, Mrs. Barbara | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Rogers, Allan | |
| Rooker, Jeff | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Rowlands, Ted | Mr. Thomas McAvoy and |
| Ruddock, Joan | Mr. Alan Meale. |
| Sedgemore, Brian |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Burns, Simon |
| Alexander, Richard | Burt, Alistair |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Butler, Peter |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Butterfill, John |
| Amess, David | Carlisle, John (Luton North) |
| Ancram, Michael | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Carrington, Matthew |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Carttiss, Michael |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Cash, William |
| Atkins, Robert | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Chaplin, Mrs Judith |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Chapman, Sydney |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Churchill, Mr |
| Baldry, Tony | Clappison, James |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) |
| Bates, Michael | Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey |
| Batiste, Spencer | Coe, Sebastian |
| Beggs, Roy | Colvin, Michael |
| Bellingham, Henry | Congdon, David |
| Bendall, Vivian | Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Cope, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Cormack, Patrick |
| Body, Sir Richard | Couchman, James |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Cran, James |
| Booth, Hartley | Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) |
| Boswell, Tim | Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Davies, Quentin (Stamford) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Day, Stephen |
| Bowis, John | Deva, Nirj Joseph |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Devlin, Tim |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Dicks, Terry |
| Brazier, Julian | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bright, Graham | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Dover, Den |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Duncan, Alan |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Duncan-Smith, Iain |
| Dunn, Bob | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| Eggar, Tim | Legg, Barry |
| Elletson, Harold | Leigh, Edward |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) | Lightbown, David |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Evans, Roger (Monmouth) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Evennett, David | Lord, Michael |
| Faber, David | Luff, Peter |
| Fabricant, Michael | Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Fishburn, Dudley | MacKay, Andrew |
| Forman, Nigel | Maclean, David |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Forth, Eric | McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick |
| Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) | Madel, David |
| Freeman, Roger | Maitland, Lady Olga |
| French, Douglas | Malone, Gerald |
| Gale, Roger | Mans, Keith |
| Gallie, Phil | Marland, Paul |
| Gardiner, Sir George | Marlow, Tony |
| Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Garnier, Edward | Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) |
| Gill, Christopher | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Gillan, Cheryl | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair | Mellor, Rt Hon David |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Merchant, Piers |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Milligan, Stephen |
| Gorst, John | Mills, Iain |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Moate, Roger |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Grylls, Sir Michael | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Hague, William | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Needham, Richard |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Nelson, Anthony |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Hannam, Sir John | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Hargreaves, Andrew | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Harris, David | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Hawkins, Nick | Norris, Steve |
| Hawksley, Warren | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Hayes, Jerry | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Heald, Oliver | Ottaway, Richard |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Page, Richard |
| Hendry, Charles | Paice, James |
| Hicks, Robert | Patnick, Irvine |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Patten, Rt Hon John |
| Hill, James (Southampton Test) | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) | Pickles, Eric |
| Horam, John | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Portillo, Rt Hon Michael |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Redwood, John |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Richards, Rod |
| Hunter, Andrew | Riddick, Graham |
| Jack, Michael | Robathan, Andrew |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) |
| Jessel, Toby | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Key, Robert | Sackville, Tom |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim |
| Knapman, Roger | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Knox, David | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Tredinnick, David |
| Soames, Nicholas | Trend, Michael |
| Speed, Sir Keith | Trimble, David |
| Spencer, Sir Derek | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Viggers, Peter |
| Spink, Dr Robert | Walker, Bill (N Tayside) |
| Spring, Richard | Waller, Gary |
| Sproat, Iain | Ward, John |
| Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John | Waterson, Nigel |
| Steen, Anthony | Watts, John |
| Stephen, Michael | Wells, Bowen |
| Stern, Michael | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Stewart, Allan | Whitney, Ray |
| Streeter, Gary | Whittingdale, John |
| Sumberg, David | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Sweeney, Walter | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Sykes, John | Wilkinson, John |
| Tapsell, Sir Peter | Willetts, David |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) | Wilshire, David |
| Taylor, John M. (Solihull) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) | Wood, Timothy |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Yeo, Tim |
| Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) | |
| Thornton, Sir Malcolm | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Thurnham, Peter | Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and |
| Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) | Mr. Robert G. Hughes. |
| Tracey, Richard |
§ Question accordingly negatived.