Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill.


Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s disagreement is not with these Benches: it is with the UNHCR, the custodian of the convention. It is for that body to decide the proper way for the statute to be interpreted. I am glad to know that the noble Baroness has had these consultations with members of the UNHCR since the letter of 10 November and the further letter in December in which it reinforced its opinion. I am certain I can predict that in those conversations it did not resile from the position that we are setting a bad example and that, inevitably, many of the other 146 states which are parties to this treaty will reconsider their own position. There could even be a leapfrogging in the narrowing of the definition of people who come within Article 1F. The situation is already very difficult where a person may technically have committed an act of terrorism. I take the example of a person from this country who is applying for asylum elsewhere. He was found to have committed criminal damage to council offices in pursuance of his opposition to the poll tax, when it existed. Technically, that person would be a terrorist. Anyone who damaged council property in pursuance of the political objective of getting the poll tax abolished would, within the definition adopted from the Terrorism Act 2000, have been a terrorist. In such legislation, one would not be able to question whether the surrounding circumstances were such as to make it advisable and desirable to grant that person protection because he would be a terrorist. He would be excluded from protection by the mechanism the Government have chosen. We should continue to consult the UNHCR. We should continue to bear in mind the effect which the Minister did not mention: that other states would copy the example we set and that thereby more people would be excluded from protection in a way that the UNHCR and most of us would consider highly undesirable. However, we shall not make further progress today. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c612-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Contracts Data protection Codes of practice Appeals Bail Asylum Detainees Applications Deportation British nationality Aircraft Employment Families Human rights Enforcement Fixed penalties Eligibility Immigration controls Immigration Undocumented migrants Human trafficking Hong Kong Legal representation Entry clearances Legal opinion Immigration officers Private sector Pilot schemes National security Protection Monitoring Passengers Registration Terrorism Treaties Training Refugees Small businesses Right of search Temporary accommodation Students Detention centres British overseas citizenship
Legislation
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk