31 Jan 2007 : Column 227
House of Lords
Wednesday, 31 January 2007.
The House met at three o’clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Asylum: Adjudicators
The Lord Bishop of Winchester asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What information is given to asylum adjudicators regarding conditions in those countries subject to or emerging from conflict whose nationals are seeking asylum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the country information before immigration judges depends on the appellant’s appeal grounds. The information generally includes Home Office country reports, US State Department reports, Amnesty International reports and Human Rights Watch reports. Some parties may commission experts on country conditions to prepare independent reports for immigration judges. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal also sets authoritative country guidance determinations to assist its judiciary. They can all be found on the tribunal’s website.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, many of those most involved in these questions would hear the Minister’s response with the sheerest incredulity. I wonder how she explains the adjudications that I have read, which those working in the field assure me are quite typical, that suggest that those responsible have no conception of the lack of any order and of the unpredictable cruelty and/or lack of discipline of whatever officials, police or military there may be. That suggests that those responsible have not read any of the documentation that she mentioned. I have sought to read much of it in particular cases, and it flies utterly contrary to the view of the adjudications. Does the noble Baroness agree with me that during the past 10 years, the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda, for example, have not been the peaceful, predictable, English suburban kind of places that adjudications seem to imagine are the places from which those people have come?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate’s suggestion is far-reaching. It is crucial that immigration judges receive ongoing training, which they do, that they understand refugee law, which they do, and that they understand diversity issues, which are critical. They make decisions based on the evidence before them, apply the law to the facts as they find them and rely on case law. They take seriously allegations of violence, torture or rape that are put before them.
31 Jan 2007 : Column 228
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate appears to be criticising individual adjudicators rather than the system as such. Since much will depend upon an individual’s interpretation of conditions in a country, will my noble friend indicate how often the website is updated, whether there is sufficient detail on conditions in particular regions within a country and whether, if an adjudicator has a particular problem, it is possible for him to refer to the Foreign Office or an appropriate official for more detailed background?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the website is updated quite regularly—I can notify the noble Lord and the House of details of precisely how often—but it depends, to a degree, on when new information is available, as noble Lords would expect. On the ability of the judiciary to get information, applicants provide the information and ask for it to be brought forward. The judiciary responds to that information because, in making the application, applicants put forward evidence to suit their case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standard of country information reports has greatly improved in the past couple of years, particularly since the recommendations of the advisory panel last October? However, immigration judges and practitioners may not always have time to read the lengthy reports, some of which extend to 150 pages. They therefore rely heavily on Home Office presenters to extract information relevant to particular cases from the country information reports. That does not always happen, so the right reverend Prelate is putting his finger on the failure of Home Office presenters rather than of the country information unit.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that the right reverend Prelate was alluding to that because he was very specific in describing his concerns. However, I take the noble Lord’s point that he would wish to raise those concerns in this House. It is very important that members of the judiciary take the time, as I believe they do, to ensure that the information they have before them is well understood. It is part of the practice to listen to the evidence as it is presented.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in the case of Zimbabwe up to 2005 the Home Office reports were so flawed that very bad decisions were given for some very deserving cases. The FCO has great experience in gathering information overseas, as the right reverend Prelate said, but can we be assured that future reports will draw on the wealth of knowledge of FCO posts abroad, particularly given that many of our diplomatic missions in Africa and elsewhere are closing, and ensure that there are no further inaccurate reports that result in HMG failing to meet their international obligations to look after human rights?
31 Jan 2007 : Column 229
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the human rights Minister I am deeply concerned that we meet our international obligations. I am very proud of our record. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office compiles the reports, so we rely very heavily on its information. I am delighted that noble Lords feel that the information is getting better all the time.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is impossible for adjudicators, any more than anybody else, to be totally immune to the context in which they are working? If too much of the media and, indeed, too much of the body politic are constantly saying that asylum seekers are bad news and should be sent home unless there is some overriding reason for not doing so, it is very difficult for adjudicators to do their job with real objectivity. Should not this House and everybody else give all possible support to adjudicators by saying that when they see an asylum seeker their job is to determine what is right in that individual’s circumstances?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very proud of the objectivity of our adjudicators; they do an important and occasionally difficult job because they are looking at very difficult pieces of information and making judgments. I have no doubt about the objectivity of the judiciary in this country or of its independence; so perhaps I would not agree with my noble friend on that. We have a long and proud tradition of supporting genuine asylum seekers. One of our ambitions is to make sure that those in genuine need, whom we would wish to support, can be supported as speedily as possible. We also recognise that there are cases that do not warrant our support.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the newly formed Independent Asylum Commission. Is the Minister aware that we shall be devoting early attention to this subject and that we look forward to reporting back, perhaps in advance of our findings, which will be published early next year?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords; I look forward to the report that comes back.
People Trafficking: Operation Pentameter
3.07 pm
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre has already commenced planning for Pentameter 2. Although the precise scope, timeframe and scale of the operation have not yet been finalised, it is intended that it will take place during 2007.
31 Jan 2007 : Column 230
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is not much greater clarity desirable on who does what in relation to both trafficked adults and trafficked children? Will the Government do their best to resolve the underlying tension between immigration law and policy and the proper care of victims of crime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree that it is important that we have high-quality, high-grade co-ordination. That is why in June last year we launched the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre, which came about partly as a result of the success of Operation Pentameter, which was a national police-led multi-agency operation, as the noble Lord will know. On his second point, I agree that Governments attempt to achieve that very difficult exercise. We need to keep the two things in balance in protecting our borders—ensuring that we have sensible immigration legislation and regulation in place, while dealing with those who are victims of trafficking with care and compassion.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, the Minister recently announced that the Government were putting together a timetable for the signing of the Council of Europe's treaty on human trafficking and for ratification of the treaty. It would be better if we could know when that timetable is to be announced, as there is great concern in all parts of this House.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that we need to have a route map and timetable set out. We are wholly sympathetic with the objectives behind the Council of Europe convention. We are compliant with most, if not all, the convention provisions on enforcement and criminalisation but, as I am sure that she will appreciate, it is only right that we seek to get things in good order before we proceed. We have signed up to it; we then move to ratification; but we want to ensure that before ratifying conventions, we have all the domestic legislation and guidance in place.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is clearly reassuring to hear that the exercise will be repeated, but can the Minister tell us what the ongoing benefits of the previous exercise have been? In particular, are the police able to reassure trafficked women that if they come to them with their story, they will be protected against the vengeance of those who have trafficked them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are continuing benefits from the original operation, which identified 84 victims, some minors aged 14 to 17. More than 230 people were arrested and more than 130 charged. Those charges varied greatly, but many of them were very serious. That has enabled us to have a much better picture and understanding of the true nature and extent of trafficking. The Government continue to put money into the POPPY project, which helps victims of trafficking to recover and develop a sense of where they need to go next.
31 Jan 2007 : Column 231
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as recently as last week, in Strasbourg, in the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the president of UNICEF called on all Governments of the member states of the Council of Europe to sign and ratify the convention as one of the most important steps? She emphasised the urgency of that. If there are obstacles in existing legislation that prevent us signing it, as my noble friend seemed to imply, can he tell us what they are and not only the timetable for signing and ratification but how we propose to get over those obstacles?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree that it is urgent that we proceed with the matter, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that we need to ensure that we have our policies, procedures and guidance properly in place before we move forward. Only three countries have moved from signing to ratification. Greatly to our credit, during our presidency in 2005, the UK took an important lead in this policy field towards ensuring that we have effective measures in place to combat trafficking.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the traffic is increasing or decreasing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not in a position to make that evaluation or judgment. That is why we need to carry on doing the research and undertaking the current operations. It would be misleading of me to make an off-the-cuff assessment, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, at the end of last year, we were promised an action plan on human trafficking and that it would be published before the end of 2006. Right at the beginning of this year, we were told that it had been delayed but that it would be published during January. This is the last day of January. Why this delay? Why are the Government dragging their feet on such important issues?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that we are dragging our feet.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we properly consulted on tackling human trafficking. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a complex area of policy and one that we need to get right. There were many responses to the consultation document, and they dealt very comprehensively with issues of prevention, investigation, prosecution, and the support of victims. I emphasise that the Government and law enforcement agencies want to ensure that we get our policies in the right order. Only then can we ensure that victims of human trafficking are properly protected.
31 Jan 2007 : Column 232
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson? Is it right that substantial amendments to our law would be involved in ratification of the convention, or is it wrong?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is one of the important issues and one reason why it has taken longer to resolve some of these issues than we would have otherwise desired. We may well have to reflect on our current legislative arrangements for dealing with these issues.
Kenya: Electoral Commission
3.15 pm
Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Kenya following the appointment of members of the Electoral Commission without consultation with opposition parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, Section 41 of the Kenyan Constitution grants the president exclusive rights to appoint commissioners to the Electoral Commission of Kenya. However, in the interests of a sound electoral process, it is essential that the Electoral Commission be perceived as independent and impartial by the Kenyan electorate. We, along with our EU partners, stressed the importance of this to Foreign Minister Tuju on 18 January. We will continue to make these points to the Kenyan Government.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister’s reply. Does he agree that it is an absolute prerequisite of a free and fair election in any country that the commission organising it is clearly seen to be independent? That has been assured in this country by consulting opposition party leaders on appointments to the commission, as President Moi did. Does the Minister therefore agree with the outgoing chairman of the commission, who is quoted in the Kenyan press as saying that if it is constituted in a way that people are not happy with, they will not trust the result?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is a very real risk that people will not trust the result. The objections that I have read appear to be not so much to the individuals named—they are clearly legally appointed by the President under the Kenyan Constitution—but to the fact that opposition parties have plainly not been consulted. That is a weakness which we will continue to bring to the attention of the Kenyan Government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the reaction of the Foreign Minister of Kenya was?
31 Jan 2007 : Column 233
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Foreign Minister of Kenya takes the view that the President has powers under Section 41 of the Kenyan Constitution and that he has exercised them properly. However, he also takes into account the considerable apprehension felt about the fact that the opposition have not been consulted and that we regard that as a weakness.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will Her Majesty’s Government take any of this into account when considering precisely how much aid we should be giving to Kenya and where it is going?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, with respect, the question misconceives the way in which aid goes to Kenya. There is no general government support, because corruption in the country is so acute that it would not be possible to give budgetary support as we do, for example, in Tanzania. Rather, there is support for particular NGOs and to tackle particular famine problems, and we are trying to ensure—I believe we have succeeded in ensuring—that the money goes to those who should not suffer further from climatic and other disasters.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the failure of the Government of Kenya to tackle the Anglo Leasing scandal, and the appointment of the nine new members of the Electoral Commission without regard to political balance and without consultation, evidence that the new Government have disappointed all those who supported the previous one’s dismissal? Furthermore, were these matters raised by the Commonwealth Secretary-General on his recent visit when he said that the secretariat’s involvement with Kenya was intense, and could the secretariat play any part in mediating between the Government and the opposition to sort these matters out to the satisfaction of the public?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not aware of the entire content of Don McKinnon’s discussions with the Kenyan Government, but I can say on behalf of this Government that the promises President Kibaki made, especially about the kinds of reforms he will achieve in the first 100 days of taking office, have been worse than disappointing. There is plainly a great deal to be done, and I believe that the Commonwealth, together with sovereign Governments such as our own, must continue to press these points.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my noble friend said that corruption in Kenya is acute with regard to funding. Is it thought that the appointment of this commission is also a manifestation of that corruption?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not think it can be said that this is corruption in the sense that I used the words a few moments ago, but it is plainly a distortion of a political process if people do not try to secure the arrangements which will give confidence in the electoral outcome. We are seeing the simple use of complete executive power without regard to opposition interests, which is a frailty if people wish to construct a democracy.
31 Jan 2007 : Column 234
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many Members of this House may be more concerned about the Electoral Commission of Kenya than the Electoral Commission of our own country? Is he also aware that there is now more fraud in postal voting in Britain than there is in Kenya?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, no one has drawn my attention to any postal voting in Kenya. I do not know whether there is provision for postal voting in Kenya. The potential flaws in the Kenyan election system, were they to occur in the United Kingdom, would probably create an outcry far greater than the noble Lord has just made.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |