965
Refugees:
[ 27 FEBRUARY 1985]
country of asylum or a neighbouring country, or resettlement in a third country.
Other key organisations include the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees; the Red Cross; and the British voluntary agencies, which are very much in the minds of many of your Lordships, including in particular the right reverend Prelate, this evening. We are firmly committed to supporting the activities of all these organisations.
Like these organisations our fundamental aim is to work for long-term solutions. Resettlement in Western industrialised countries such as the United Kingdom often brings problems of adaptation. We believe that the voluntary return of refugees to their homes in their own countries is the most desirable long-term solution for the majority of them. Where this is not possible, we must seek to help the host countries as best we can. Where such durable solutions are not imminent, we believe that it is necessary to support the traditional care and maintenance programmes fostering self- reliance among refugees. Such activities help to build a relationship between refugee aid and the development of the less developed countries, where so many of the refugees are found.
The record of this Government in this field is one of which we can be proud. Each year for the past four years we have contributed £5.4 million to the UNHCR's general programme. Over the same period we have contributed £5 million annually to the core budget of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees. In addition, we do our best to respond to all special appeals from all the refugee relief agencies. In the current financial year our responses to these appeals have included £5.9 million to the UNHCR, £3.1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross, £2.9 million to the League of Red Cross Societies, and £1.6 million to the British Voluntary Agencies, of which £657,000 went to the Save the Children Fund. We have already pledged £250,000 towards the 1985 budget of the UN Border Relief Operation on the Thai/Cambodian border; and I am pleased to announce that my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has just approved a further grant of £250,000 towards these costs.
In addition to emergency relief, we have always recognised the importance of more durable solutions. We were one of the first donors to respond to the UNHCR World Bank initiative to income generating projects for the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. To date we have provided £1,750,000 for this purpose. At the Second International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa last July, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a further £5 million to support the infrastructure needs of those countries providing a haven for refugees in Africa. The scheme will be operated through the voluntary agencies during the period 1984-89. This will provide support for local communities as well as refugees, a point well made by my noble friend Lord Brentford.
We have recently also agreed a £100,000 contribution to the UNHCR's income-generating projects in Sudan. We support the Orderly Departure Programme for family reunion cases leaving Vietnam, and the Thai Government's anti-piracy operations
HL 14 G2
Third World
966
aimed at deterring attacks on Vietnamese refugee boats. Together these account for £225,000. Closer to home we support the work of the British Refugee Council with grants totalling over £320,000.
I should now like to turn to some of the detailed points raised during this afternoon's debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked whether the Government could adopt a more flexible approach on the granting of political asylum to refugees from the third world. The 1951 Convention on Refugees defines a refugee as a person outside his home country who is unable or unwilling to return there because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. We not only comply scrupulously with the obligations under the convention and protocol, but already in fact go beyond the obligations under it. A person who is not considered to be a refugee under the convention may still be allowed to remain here exceptionally because of the particular circumstances of his case or in the light of the situation prevailing in his home country.
Indeed, the situation in some countries has caused us to establish several exceptional policies for certain nationals. In recent years the countries concerned have included Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Poland and Uganda. Under these policies less stringent tests than the criteria for refugees are applied in deciding whether a person should be allowed to remain here exceptionally, normally for 12 months in the first instance. Extensions are normally granted if there have been no material changes of circumstances.
I believe these indicate that we do operate flexible policies towards those who seek refuge in this country. Our record is commendable. In the period from 1979 to 1983 over 7,500 people were granted asylum here. In addition, in the period from 1st July 1983 to 30th June 1984 some 770 applicants were granted leave to remain here exceptionally. These figures do not include some 19,000 or so Vietnamese refugees who have also been admitted. In the same five-year period some 170 Ugandan nationals were granted asylum, and in the period from 1st July 1983 to 30th June 1984 74 Ugandans were granted exceptional leave to remain. Only 12 applications were refused during this time.
The noble Viscount also referred to delays before applicants for political asylum hear the outcome of their applications. I do not know whether the noble Lord has a particular case in mind when he referred to a four-year delay, but I do know that such a delay would be a matter of major concern to the Home Office. If the noble Lord could let me have details of any case he has in mind, I shall ensure that it is looked into straightaway.
It is unfortunately true that on average asylum applications take longer to decide than other applica- tions under the immigration rules. In the past they have tended to take six months or more. We acknowl- edge that the average delay on such cases is too long; but asylum applications are among the most difficult and sensitive of immigration cases and decisions are routinely taken at higher levels than for other types of casework.