House of Commons - 27 Mar 2007 : Column 1299
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070327/
debtext/70327-0004.htm#07032777000005

John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): I beg to ask leave to move the
Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to discuss a
specific and important matter, namely,

"the removal by the Home Office to Khartoum of failed asylum
seekers from Darfur."

The immediate pretext for my request is the fact that the Home Office
is minded tomorrow to remove no fewer than three such people on
flights to Khartoum, and there are plans for further removals next
week. One example that illustrates the argument comes to mind:
Mohammed Abdulhaddi Ali is a black African from the Zaghawa tribe who
has demonstrated outside the Sudanese embassy in London and who is a
known opponent of the Sudanese Government. I submit to the House that
he would be at risk of persecution if he were returned to Khartoum.

The Government have signed up to the principle of
non-refoulement-they accept that they have a responsibility not to
return people to states in which there is a serious risk of those
people being subject to the death penalty, torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment of punishment. The burden of the Government and
Home Office argument is that it is unsafe to return people to Darfur
but safe to do so to Khartoum.

My contention to this House is that there are a number of reasons why
it would not be safe to return people to Khartoum. There is sporadic
but intense fighting between the Government and a variety of rebel
forces. It would not be safe to return people to Khartoum, where the
national intelligence and security service is based and where it is
constantly on the lookout for returnees. It would not be safe to
return people who bear tribal scars and who are immediately
identifiable by hostile authorities. It would not be safe to return
people when we know from the published evidence of the Aegis Trust of
a great many cases of people who have been returned only to be
subject to intimidation, harassment or substantially worse.

"Safe as Ghost Houses", which was published last year by the Aegis
Trust and authored by Sarah Maguire, is explicit on the issue. The
evidence is on the record, and the Government have not issued an
intelligible or coherent response to it. It is unsafe to return
people when the Sudanese embassy is hand in glove with the Home
Office to get people out, with God knows what consequences for those
vulnerable people. It is not safe to return people such as those whom
I saw last year. I saw video evidence about a man who was returned
from this country and who was then brutally attacked and tortured by
the Sudanese authorities.

I put it to the House that we have responsibilities-the country has a
responsibility, the Government have a responsibility and this House
has a responsibility to very vulnerable people. To kick them out
would be wrong and precipitate. The matter must be debated and
debated urgently.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has
said. I must give him my decision without stating any reasons. I am
afraid that I do not consider that the matter raised is appropriate
for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore
submit the application to the House.



Sudan: Darfur

House of Lords - 27 Mar 2007 : Column WA265
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/
text/70327w0003.htm#07032762000025