Asylum Policy (Hansard, 9 May 2001)

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the Prime Minister's article made it clear that the United Kingdom is taking a lead in arguing for reform, not of the terms of values or principles of the 1951 convention, but of how it operates.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, may I draw the Minister's attention to a reply given by his noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal? She said that: Article 63(1) of the treaty establishing the European Community requires the Council to adopt within five years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam measures on asylum which are in accordance with the Geneva Convention".—[Official Report, 18/04/00; col. 560.] So it is enshrined in the European Treaty that asylum policy should be in accord with the 1951 convention. Does the Minister agree that revisions of the European treaties require unanimity and that, therefore, the likelihood that the Prime Minister will, even if it were desirable, achieve any significant alterations in the 1951 convention is negligible?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I cannot agree with that. The noble Lord is drawing attention to an important article which relates in part to the 1032 celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1951 convention. As part of that article, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has instigated a programme of global consultations which draws together refugee producing countries, countries of first asylum, refugee receiving countries, academics and legal experts to discuss topics of interest to those concerned with the protection of refugees. It is in that context that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote his article and also that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made a number of important contributions to the debate about how in the future we can deal with some of the many challenges that confront the world with regard to refugees or those seeking refugee status.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, is it or is it not correct that some countries which are signatories to the convention, including some countries in Europe, and their courts do not accept that persecution by other than an agent of the state attracts the protection of the convention?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am sure that with the noble Lord's experience in these matters as a former Home Secretary he will know that it depends very much on how one defines "an agent of the state". However, the noble Lord's point is a valid one and one that bears careful consideration in a complex international legal minefield.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I attended a meeting called by the UNHCR representative in London under the Three Circles Consultation, which the Minister has mentioned, I do not recall any representative of his department being there? However, it may be that such a representative was present but did not bother to say anything. Can the Minister enlighten the House on whether a submission was made to the UNHCR in response to the invitation to the Three Circles Consultation? If so, could that be published?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, if such a submission was made to the UNHCR, I shall endeavour to enlighten people as to its contents. No doubt it is a matter of public record.

Lord Renton
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the 50 years that have expired since the 1951 convention was agreed circumstances have changed fundamentally all over the world? There are people now who have tried to rely upon the convention in order to maintain that they are refugees but who have not been persecuted in the way that the convention described and envisaged. The convention is now being abused and it is high time that it was revised and brought up to date. Any attempt that the Prime Minister or his successor makes in order to improve matters will prevent the convention being abused by people coming to this country who have no right to rely upon it.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord will know much more about the times in 1033 which the convention was signed. It was certainly before my birth, but I understand that the noble Lord was very active in politics at that time. Of course the world has changed. It is a far more complex place. It is much easier and cheaper to travel globally. We have to ensure that the abiding principles of the convention and the philosophy which underpins it are properly adhered to in the quite proper application of the rule of law. That is what our Government seek to do. We judge asylum applications on that basis. We seek to help those who are rightly fleeing persecution and offer them comfort and support here. But we do it within the rule of law and in accordance with proper procedures and processes. I am sure that is how it should be.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, in the light of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, does the Minister consider that changing the United Nations convention would be at best a long-term business and that the situation is urgent? Will the noble Lord confirm that there are twice as many asylum seekers now as there were four years ago and that three quarters of them are refused admission on the 1951 criteria? Does he further recognise that the Government's policy of dispersal has failed on a test either of efficiency or humanity and that it is time to introduce reception centres, which we have promised to do?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am always greatly intrigued when noble Lords opposite raise the issue of reception centres. To my certain knowledge, our Government have provided for a detention centre at Oakington, but noble Lords opposite seem to forget that it is a Conservative council that has blocked the planning application for a similar centre in Kent. Conservative Members struggle to identify further and additional sites. If we were to satisfy the political wishes to which the noble Lord has given expression, we would probably need 50 similar centres, at a cost of £2 billion, for which I am not clear the Shadow Home Secretary has policy clearance. The policy is a rather mystifying one. I recall that Miss Widdecombe observed that it would take her some four or five years to incarcerate the entire asylum population, whom she would like to lock up prior to their applications for asylum being given fair consideration. It is a strange and baffling policy. I am struggling to understand how it could be easily implemented.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that locking up all asylum seekers would be in direct contravention of Article 31 of the Geneva convention, which says that those who arrive, even unlawfully, should be given freedom of movement until their position has been established? Will he also confirm that, in an attempt to avoid what would be a deeply demeaning competition to see who can be harsher to refugees, we might consider the possibility of employing some of those who are in this country, in the way that other countries do, at a time when we are recruiting from South Africa, the Philippines and elsewhere the teachers and nurses that we desperately need?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I listen carefully to what the noble Baroness says on these matters. She always raises them with great concern and with a feeling of humanity regarding the issues involved. Her interpretation and understanding are probably quite right. What we as a government have to do is a very difficult job. We have to strike the correct balance. We must treat people decently, fairly and properly when they come here seeking asylum but we must also ensure that we properly carry out our immigration and asylum legislation so that those who make unfounded claims are eventually returned.