Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

It certainly is a disgrace. I can see that the Minister has no reply to that allegation. He repeated twice that there was no difference in refugee status, but that is factually incorrect. The difference in refugee status is caused by the statutory interpretation by the Government of Articles 1F and 33(2) of the convention. Those points have been taken up by the UNHCR, and I am also glad to have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, as well as my noble friend Lord Thomas. The Government have deliberately ignored the advice that was given to them by the UNHCR that each case should be determined on its own merits, which means that it is always finally and ultimately a matter for the courts to interpret Article 1F. At least, it should be for the courts to determine how the provisions of the refugee convention are interpreted, instead of these provisions being laid down in statute, which places greater restrictions on refugees than the UNHCR considered to be warranted. These cases are entirely about the Afghans and the fulfilment of threats made originally by the Home Secretary immediately after the plane landed that he would see them off and return them to their own country. When he found that that was impossible because of the decision in the Court of Appeal, the Government decided that they would make life as difficult as possible for them by the enactment of these clauses, which, as the noble Lord has confirmed, are totally unnecessary, because they apply to a mere handful of people who were formerly dealt with, as he said, by the granting of short periods of leave to remain—six months at a time—with no option but to be renewed for as long as he could not get rid of them. What are we to do with these people? Will they remain here indefinitely with no tariff, as it were, under this special regime where they are kept in NASS-like conditions, inferior accommodation and with support that is less than that received by someone on social security, and with all that that implies not only for the persons involved but for their spouses and children? The noble Lord reiterates what was said in the Minister’s letter, which was that the spouses and children could apply for asylum in their own right, but I have already told him what happened in the two cases that we know about. To reinforce the point, I shall give the Minister another example. Mrs Z arrived in the United Kingdom in 2005, having been married to one of the hijackers before he left Afghanistan in 2000. She and the two children with her claimed asylum in their own right in June 2005. Although they have been interviewed, they have received no decision on their claim. There is also a UK-born daughter in the family. The Minister is totally inaccurate in saying that it is open to anybody who is a dependant of one of those people to apply for asylum in their own right. We see what happens; they are kept indefinitely on the hook. No solution has been made in any of the three cases that have come to my attention where spouses have done what the Minister advised. The appropriate response is not for the UNHCR to challenge the decision to exclude, as suggested by the noble Lord. The UNHCR does not intervene in individual cases and, as far as I can see, the only way in which the decision to designate under these clauses could be challenged is by judicial review. There is no right of appeal, which is one of the most obnoxious features of the whole system. However, we shall obviously not win this argument this evening, so I shall come back to it on Report. Clause 181 agreed to. Clause 182 [““Foreign criminal””]: [Amendment No. 171 not moved.] Clause 182 agreed to. Clause 183 agreed to. Clause 184 [Conditions]: [Amendment No. 172 not moved.] Clause 184 agreed to. Clauses 185 to 188 agreed to. Clause 189 [Amendment of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994]: