Comparison of Divisions: Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill — Prevent the government from interpreting the Geneva Convention so that terrorism can be used as grounds to dismiss asylum claims — rejected — 16 Nov 2005 at 17:45 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

The majority No voters rejected an amendment^[1] to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. The amendment aimed to remove a clause from the Bill entirely^[2].

The clause relates to Article 1 (F)(c) of the Refugee Convention agreed in Geneva in 1951. This allows states to reject asylum applications where the people in question have "been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In the Bill this particular clause would apply Article 1 (F)(c) to acts of terrorism, and/or encouraging others to commit these acts, meaning the government could reject asylum seekers with a suspected background in terror. If a person appeals against their asylum application being rejected, the appeal will always be dismissed if Article 1 (F)(c) applies.

The Liberal Democrats explained their reasoning for removing the clause as follows:

• 'I do not understand why the clause is necessary, and that view is shared by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA). In a briefing to me, the ILPA pointed out that the 1951 convention is an international convention in respect of which the international jurisprudence and UNHCR statements are relevant. The ILPA put it to me: "To purport to interpret it in statute is to fail to respect this jurisprudence and to usurp the role of judges in interpreting it." As ever, the Government seek to go much further than is necessary. The definition they want to import is much wider than is either necessary or desirable.'^[3]

However, the government argued:

• 'The charge is that clause 51 is not compatible with the refugee convention, but part of the justification for clause 51 in all its glory is that it reflects the relevant Security Council resolutions that refer to the guiding principles of the UN [United Nation]. UN Security Council resolution 1373 states that "knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts" as well as the commission of such acts constitute acts "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."'^[4]

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill became law in 2006. Its main aims were to:^[5]

• Restrict appeals from those are refused entry to the UK to work or study. Only rejected asylum applications can have a full appeal
• Criminalise employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants
• Allow biometric data to be taken from people entering the UK
• Requires that asylum is refused to anyone who is involved in terrorist activities

----

• [1] Alistair Carmichael MP, House of Commons, 16 November 2005
• [2] Clause 51 in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
• [3] Alistair Carmichael MP, House of Commons, 16 November 2005
• [4] Tony McNulty MP, House of Commons, 16 November 2005
• [5] Based on The Guardian's A-Z of legislation

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:^[1]

• This House
• regrets the Government's recent statement^[2] outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom;
• recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years;
• notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here;
• believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since;
• is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority;
• further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and
• calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

As a consequence, the alternative Government motion, which read:^[3]

• This House
• recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom;
• notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom;
• further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK;
• acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997;
• further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997;
• supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK;
• further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months;
• further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and
• further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.

... was never voted upon.

Although this extremely rare Government defeat in an opposition day motion is not binding (has no legal force)^[4] a Government minister made a statement later in the day to bring "forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May."^[5]

• [1] Christopher Huhne MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
• [2] Phil Woollas MP, Written Ministerial Statement, 29 April 2009
• [3] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
• [4] Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed for humiliating Gurkhas defeat in the Commons, Daily Mail, 30 April 2009
• [5] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009