Asylum Seekers: Female Persecution (Hansard, 10 July 2001)

§ Baroness Rendell of Babergh
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports that some asylum seekers have left their home countries to escape female genital mutilation, and that some of their claims for asylum have been rejected on the ground that they are victims of persecution from individuals, not from the state.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is quite ready to recognise as refugees those who have been persecuted by non-state agents as well as those persecuted by the state. In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant would have to show that female genital mutilation (FGM) is knowingly tolerated by her government or that the authorities are unable to offer effective protection.

§ Baroness Rendell of Babergh
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the threat of female genital mutilation should be a ground for asylum in that it constitutes torture and therefore breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Is he aware that asylum has been granted by both the United States and Sweden to women who were threatened by female genital mutilation in their own countries?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, we are satisfied that the issue of FGM constitutes torture under the Human Rights Act and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no question about that in our mind as there was no question in the mind of the previous government in that respect. I am aware that the United States and other countries have granted asylum to women based on their claim of the threat of FGM. In the UK we see very few cases based solely on such a threat; usually other factors are also taken into account. However, if noble Lords are aware of any specific cases of persons fleeing persecution with which the authorities are not dealing—it is a criminal offence in this country to carry out such barbaric practices—I hope that they will draw them to my attention.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, can the Minister say how many African countries have banned female circumcision? If there are some who have not banned that loathsome practice, surely women have a case that those states are persecuting them?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, there is no question about that if the government have not outlawed it. On the other hand, all the states in the United Nations, except for Somalia and the United States, signed up to the convention in respect of children. Whether they have incorporated it into their domestic law is another matter. Among certain sections of the community in some countries in central, eastern and western Africa, including Egypt in the north of Africa, that barbaric practice still takes place. However, it is not necessarily done with the connivance or acceptance of the government. That is an issue that would be raised in any asylum application. Each case has to be taken in the round. There is no doubt that it is a barbaric practice which ought to be outlawed across the planet by every country and we will do what we can to assist women who seek refuge in this country.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords. I thank the Minister for his strong statement on FGM, which is welcome. However, repeatedly during the passage of the legislation, we on these Benches were assured that those who were subject to torture, whether FGM or other kinds, would be treated with particular care with regard to detention. Is the Minister aware that there are still some proven victims of torture who have spent many months in detention and will he be kind enough to look into the matter?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I certainly accept what the noble Baroness says. If she will give me the details of 1005 particular cases to which she is referring, I shall have them investigated immediately. Besides FGM, forced abortions also constitute torture. We recognise that there are such practices. The independent appellate authorities in relation to immigration in this country have accepted that it is important to categorise women who apply for refuge on that basis.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I support and welcome the strong words that the Minister has spoken on this subject. If possible, can he tell the House how many claims have been rejected recently on the ground set out in the Question? I believe that they number few, if any.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I am not aware of a specific figure. I have looked into the matter. Applications for asylum are not specific; they are not categorised in relation to a particular reason. Many reasons are given. FGM would be part and parcel of a normal asylum application in terms of fleeing persecution, but there may be other matters to be taken into account. However, if FGM does not fit within the specific rules of the 1951 convention, and it was proved that it was taking place, we would grant exceptional leave to remain, even if refugee status were not granted.

§ Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when a country is in civil war, like many in Africa, there is no effective government to protect victims of FGM, whatever the laws may be on paper? Would such victims then be given consideration for asylum?

§ Lord Rooker
Yes, my Lords, that is most certainly the case. Where there is a civil war in a country, it is difficult for anyone to argue that there are safe areas in the country. The nature of this barbaric practice may be that it does not take place across a whole country, but simply in an isolated pocket of a community. It may be argued that a woman, or usually a very young female, could be returned to another area of a country; but if the country is racked with civil war, it would be extremely unwise and inhuman to return a person to such a country.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is there any way of protecting girls who are taken from this country to African countries for this horrible mutilation?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, the honest answer is no. Girls are removed from this country for forcible marriage and other practices under the guise of a holiday. A girl may find out the real reason for her visit only on arrival in another country. Passports are removed from girls and effectively they are locked away. Access to consular facilities is virtually non-existent and, of course, it is not practical for them to visit such facilities. One cannot sugar-coat this. The answer is no. If a young girl is removed from this country, she is removed from the protection of the UK authorities.

§ Baroness Sharples
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many countries are involved in this appalling practice?

§ Lord Rooker
No, my Lords, I cannot. I believe that it takes place in regions of eastern, central and western African countries and in a north-African country, Egypt. I do not believe that the practice exists all across those countries, but it usually takes place in isolated pockets of small communities. Africa is not the only place where it happens; it takes place in other parts of the world. The Government, through the Department of Health, are working with at least one NGO in this country to help and to facilitate a wider dispersal of information among professionals about this barbaric practice so that we can pick up the problem when people come into this country.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the countries where FGM is practised it is usual for a girl to be pursued from her home village or town to other parts of the country by relatives determined to inflict this frightful torture on her? Therefore, in such cases, it would not be satisfactory to send a woman back to another part of the country from where she hailed originally. Does the Minister also agree that it is necessary to put on the Home Office country reports the fact that a country is not able to afford adequate protection so that that information is available to entry certificate officers and to others in the IND?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I shall take on board, in a positive way, the noble Lord's suggestion about the in-country reports. However, it is true that young females sometimes flee their villages, with the protection of their parents who do not want FGM to take place, when people in the community seek them out for that purpose. Each case and each claim will have to be judged on its individual circumstances and merits. It is not possible to give a blanket, global reply. However, I take on board the latter part of the suggestion made by the noble Lord.