HC Deb 22 July 2002 vol 389 cc860-1W
Mr. Gareth Thomas

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy where family ties are claimed to the UK in third country cases. [72780]

Beverley Hughes

The policy on the exercise of discretion in safe third country cases where family ties to the United Kingdom are claimed is that potential third country cases would normally have their asylum claims considered substantively in this country where:

  1. (a) an applicant's spouse is in the United Kingdom;
  2. (b) the applicant is an unmarried minor and a parent is in the United Kingdom;
  3. (c) the applicant has an unmarried minor child in the United Kingdom.

The policy in (a) would not be applied in cases where a marriage was contracted after the applicant's arrival in the United Kingdom. In all cases "in the United Kingdom" is to be taken as meaning with leave to enter or remain or on temporary admission to this country as an asylum seeker prior to an initial decision on their application.

Discretion may be exercised according to the merits of the case where:

  1. (d) a married minor was involved but the criteria in (b) or (c) above were otherwise fulfilled. (We would be less likely to consider cases under (c) than (b) under these circumstances).
  2. (e) the applicant was an elderly or otherwise dependent parent;
  3. (f) the family link was not one which would normally be considered but there was clear evidence that the applicant was wholly or mainly dependent on the relative in the United Kingdom and that there was an absence of similar support elsewhere.

I would expect cases falling into this latter category to be rare.

Factors which might influence the exercise of discretion in these cases, such as language, cultural links or the number of family members in the United Kingdom may have a bearing, but there would need to be a compelling combination of such factors to ensure the exercise of discretion in favour of an applicant.

Cases citing family ties which would not normally be considered and which did not display any of the features, which engaged the exercise of discretion, would not normally be considered substantively. This means that a brother, who was not dependent on his sibling(s), would not normally have his case considered here, no matter how strong his cultural or linguistic links with the United Kingdom.

The intention of the policy is to re-unite members of an existing family unit who, through circumstances outside their control, had become fragmented. However, I emphasise that where the relationship did not exist prior to the person's arrival to the United Kingdom, the policy would only be applied in the most exceptionally compelling cases.

I am satisfied that this policy complies with the United Kingdom's obligations as regards the European Convention on Human Rights and that it is consistent with our obligations under the Dublin Convention, as set out in Article 1 of Decision 1–2000 of the Committee set up by Article 18 of the Dublin Convention concerning the transfer of responsibility for family members in accordance with Article 3(4) and Article 9 of the Convention.