HL Deb 12 February 2003 vol 644 cc665-6

2.43 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in the light of the terrorist threat, they have any plans to suspend the United Kingdom's obligations relating to asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights and to introduce general measures of safeguard.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)

My Lords, we have no current plans to withdraw from our international obligations relating to asylum or the ECHR. However, we should not be afraid to review relevant international obligations if current measures to tackle asylum are not effective. We have already introduced a power to deal with suspected terrorists. The United Kingdom has derogated from Article 5 of the ECHR, which allows us to detain foreign nationals who are suspected of international terrorism of the sort that resulted in the events of September 11th and who threaten national security but cannot be deported.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. While the threat of terrorist attack from those within the realm remains, ought not the Government to consider suspension of international obligations that inhibit measures of safeguard and afford cover on entry for those who enter for that very purpose? Ought not the Government to consider the imposition of some fair share limitation on those who seek asylum and others who seek leave to enter, with provisions for detention pending security clearance and powers of removal?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, on the first question, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 dealt in very large measure with the problems of ECHR Article 3. As the House may know, 13 people are currently held under that power. I cannot off the top of my head think of other immediate changes to legislation that are necessary in that respect to deal with the terrorist threats that are facing this country. However, we are aware of the seriousness of those threats, and therefore we shall keep such matters under constant review, as we keep operational matters under review. It is wrong to assume that if there were no asylum seekers coming to this country, there would be no terrorist threat. Clearly, some terrorists may use asylum as a cover to enter this country, but there are plenty of other mechanisms by which they could get into this country even if there were no Geneva Convention and no asylum routes. We have to maintain a sense of proportion while keeping a vigorous vigilance about how to combat terrorist threats.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it was a Conservative government, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, took the commendable step of reinforcing the prohibition against torture in the European Convention on Human Rights by ratifying without reservation the Convention Against Torture, Article 7 of which expressly forbids sending anyone, whether an asylum seeker or a suspected terrorist, to another country where they will face torture? Does he agree that it is curiously inconsistent for that party now to be clamouring for the repudiation of international obligations that they freely undertook?

Lord Filkin

My Lords, it is extremely novel to be invited by a Liberal Democrat to congratulate the Official Opposition, but on this occasion I have pleasure in agreeing with the noble Lord.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the present UN convention relating to the status of refugees—in particular Article 1 F(a) and 1 F(c)—is explicit that third country nationals who are a threat to our country internally or who are involved in action contrary to the principles of the UN can be excluded from the convention? In the light of that, does he accept that there is no need to suspend the European convention because of terrorist threats? In addition, the Minister rightly spelt out the provision of existing anti-terrorism legislation.

Lord Filkin

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. As he will know better than many, we also looked at these issues as part of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. We wanted to ensure that we had robust legislation to enable the Home Secretary, in tightly defined circumstances, to remove people when they were clearly not afforded the protection of the 1951 Geneva Convention in the terms that he describes.