Asylum Seekers (Hansard, 9 April 2001)

§ 8. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
What assessment he has made with his EU counterparts of the operation of the Dublin convention on the treatment of asylum seekers.[156027]

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)
The Dublin convention has not worked as it should. The procedures are slow and 700 cumbersome and, crucially for the United Kingdom, agreements between member states to transfer asylum seekers under the convention have been subjected to repeated difficulties because of judicial review challenges in United Kingdom courts.
In the European Union, we have been leading the case for reform of the Dublin process. We await proposals from the Commission.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Instead of waiting for proposals from the Commission, is it not about time that the Government got a grip of border controls in this country? Is it not a fact that last year there were about 76,000 asylum applicants, and that about 60,000 were ineligible for asylum, but only about 9,000 went back? Is it not high time that European Union countries, instead of playing pass the parcel with humanity, took care to exercise their responsibilities effectively so that applications from asylum seekers are processed in the first EU country in which they arrive?

§ Mr. Straw
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The principle of the Dublin convention is that asylum seekers' applications should be processed in the first EU country in which they set foot. The difficulty is the way in which the convention has been constructed, and the repeated problems that we have faced over, for example, decisions by our higher courts to classify France and Germany as unsafe third countries, a view with which I respectfully disagree.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited the Dublin convention. It was signed in 1990 and did not come into force until October 1997. We have been working hard—I have taken the lead in Europe—to propose changes to it. We have doubled the number of removals over the past four years, but one of the major problems in that context is the convention and the way in which our courts have sought to interpret it. That is why we are engaged in further detailed discussions within the Commission to try to change its wording.

§ Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)
In the negotiations on replacing the Dublin convention, does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a danger that agreement will be reached by sinking to the lowest common denominator? In that context, we might think twice about exporting the voucher system to the rest of Europe. What steps are being taken to try to influence the process, given that we are not, as a result of the Amsterdam treaty, fully signed up to a common system across Europe?

§ Mr. Straw
We accepted article 64 of the treaty, which provides for common minimum standards for asylum seekers. Work is taking place on proposals in respect of that. We must move towards a common playing field. We cannot have a circumstance where there is effective free movement across every other country in the EU and we have border controls, and where our definitions of whether someone should or should not be given asylum have been judicially interpreted in a way that is significantly at odds with the interpretations of courts in other European countries.
I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we will drop to the lowest common denominator. Every member of the EU is a signatory to the European 701 convention on human rights, which sets a basic template for how individuals are treated. For example, it already secures a common policy on ultimate removals, which is why decisions to declare France and Germany unsafe states within the refugee convention are all the less explicable.

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
The Home Secretary is right to remind the House that the Dublin convention was signed as long ago as 1990, before our problems were on anything like their present scale, and that its objective was to ensure that asylum seekers made their applications in the first EU country that they reached. If the convention is not working as intended, it should be revised or we should consider withdrawing from it.
In so far as our problems are being caused by decisions of the United Kingdom courts, what steps is the Home Secretary taking to introduce legislation to overrule them? Does he know that, this year alone, nearly 1,200 people have been apprehended in the UK terminal of Eurotunnel in my constituency? What progress has been made to persuade the French Government to ensure that SNCF reinforces the fencing for which it is responsible at the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles?

§ Mr. Straw
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I have had many discussions with, and made representations to, the French Government and SNCF to ensure that they reinforce security measures at their end of the tunnel. As he knows, I have introduced a civil penalty for rail freight as well as other carriage through the tunnel better to secure that and to bear down on SNCF. The French Government have already agreed to introduce juxtaposed controls for passengers on Eurostar services. They have promised to introduce legislation on that by June.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first question, section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 sought to deal with the problem of the definition of safe third countries in a case known as Adan and Aitsegeur before the Court of Appeal. However, I regret that members of the Judicial Committee in another place have decided on an even wider interpretation of a safe third country. We are therefore considering further changes to legislation.

§ Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that whatever changes we might make, this country will remain a safe haven for Muslims and others who are fleeing from the Taliban in Afghanistan, people such as my constituents who fled the civil war in Somalia, and Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein? Will he also confirm that Labour Members will have nothing to do with the outrageous views of the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend)? It is about time that the Conservative party removed the Whip from him.

§ Mr. Straw
Of course, I confirm that we shall continue to uphold in every particular our obligations under the refugee convention to grant refugee status to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. I accept my hon. Friend's comments on the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend). However, I regret that many 702 Conservative Members have consistently sought not to tackle but to exploit one of the most difficult problems for Europe.

§ Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)
When the Home Secretary next consults his EU counterparts, will he consider why asylum applications in the United Kingdom reached record levels, but fell in Germany and the Netherlands? Will he accept that common sense and experience from overseas suggest that extensive use of the power to detain asylum seekers in secure reception centres and fast-tracking manifestly ill-founded claims are the way in which to deter unfounded claims? Will he recognise at last that the policies that Conservative Members have advocated for some years would result in our being able to tackle the problem and would be significantly better for our national interest than the shambolic system over which he presides?

§ Mr. Straw
The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Last year, the number of asylum applications rose by 7 per cent. over the previous year. Applications fell in Germany, but they increased by a higher figure in the Netherlands. We remain seventh in the league table per head of population. The Netherlands has almost twice as many applications per head. That also applies to Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Denmark and Sweden. It is a Europe-wide problem. It must be thought through, which the Conservative party has failed to do. The number of applications being decided in a year has trebled compared with when the Conservative party left office. As a result, the backlog is at a seven-year low—well below the level when it left office.
To give a further illustration of the way in which Conservative Members do not seek seriously to deal with the problem, but instead exploit it, it was they who chose to fight against the civil penalty—the £2,000 per clandestine—which has been the single most important measure to bear down on the criminals. They would destroy it.
As for detention space, like the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the hon. Gentleman speaks about the idea, although it would be impossible, inhumane and ridiculously costly to detain every single asylum seeker. However, when we propose an extra detention centre—in Aldington in Kent—what happens? Conservatives locally and nationally oppose it. That is the policy: they want detention centres anywhere but in their own Conservative backyards.