Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007. The noble Lord said: This is now the fifth order that we have brought forward adding countries to the list of those countries to which the non-suspensive appeal provisions in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 apply. This section allows the Secretary of State to add a country to the list if he or she is satisfied that in general there is no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside there and that removal to that country of persons entitled to reside there will not in general breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It also provides that an unsuccessful asylum or human rights claim made by a person entitled to reside in a designated state must be certified as clearly unfounded, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded. The effect of such a certificate is that a person must leave the United Kingdom before appealing the decision to refuse their claim, while still having an out-of-country right of appeal. Since their introduction, powers to add countries to the list have been used on a progressive basis to ensure that the provisions work well and are successful in stopping people making unfounded applications for asylum and unnecessarily prolonging the appeals process. The evidence to date on the 14 countries already on the list demonstrates that this is indeed the case and that the powers have made a significant impact on reducing the number of asylum applicants from those countries. For example, the intake of new applications from the countries that were designated in the 2002 Act—the then 10 EU accession countries—fell by 86 per cent over the first six months in which the provisions were in place and by 93 per cent over the course of the first year. Between the powers being introduced in October 2002 and April 2004, when the countries concerned became members of the EU, and the non-suspensive appeals designation effectively ended, intake fell by 97 per cent, with the overall intake during that period falling by 70 per cent. There was a similar drop in intake for the countries that were added to the list on 1 April 2003, namely Albania, Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova and Serbia and Montenegro. In those countries, intake fell by 86 per cent from March 2003 to March 2007, with overall intake during that period falling by 57 per cent. The figures include Montenegro, which was effectively removed from the list on 3 June 2006 following the dissolution of the old state union between it and Serbia. Noble Lords will be aware that statistics supplied in respect of asylum claims from Montenegro, as an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the draft order, combine the number of claims from Montenegro and Serbia together. We have now extrapolated the figures for Montenegro, which we will supply to Members at a later date, if and when required. For countries that were added to the list on 23 July 2003—namely, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, South Africa and Ukraine—intake fell by 61 per cent from June 2003 to March 2007, with the overall intake during that period falling by 48 per cent. Those figures exclude Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which were also added to the list on 23 July 2003, but were removed on 22 April 2005 and 13 December 2006 respectively. With regard to India, which was added to the list on 15 February 2005, intake fell by 52 per cent from March of that year to March 2007, with the overall intake during that period falling by 13 per cent. For Mongolia and—for men only—for Nigeria and Ghana, which were added to the list on 2 December 2005, intake fell by 34 per cent from December of that year to March 2007, with overall intake during that period falling by 5 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. In terms of the decision-making process for considering an asylum or human rights claim from a resident of a designated country, each claim is given full and proper consideration on its individual merits by a fully trained caseworker. Applicants are entitled to legal aid and advice as part of the process, and the right of appeal against any refusal decision, albeit from outside the country. Failsafes, in addition to those already in place for asylum claims from those not entitled to reside in designated countries, are built into the process. They include senior caseworker approval for each and every decision, thus ensuring the integrity of the decision-making process, and judicial review of decisions certified as clearly unfounded where an applicant believes that their case was wrongly certified. As a result of this process, we have been able to remove from the United Kingdom individuals whose asylum claims were established to be unfounded and who have diverted resources away from processing the claims of those in genuine need of international protection. In view of the successful operation of the provisions thus far, we have decided that the time is now right for us to add a further 10 countries to the list. The draft order would, first, add Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mauritius, Montenegro and Peru to the list, and, secondly, add Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and Sierra Leone in respect of men only. It would also make a technical amendment regarding the designation of Serbia. The old state union of Serbia and Montenegro was designated in April 2003. Following the dissolution of the old state union, Serbia remained designated, albeit under the words ““Serbia and Montenegro”” as it was the successor state to the old state union. The amendment to the list would therefore reflect that Serbia and Montenegro are now two separate states and should be listed separately. The assessment as to whether a particular country meets the test for designation is not simply based on the number of applications received from people entitled to reside in that country or the percentage of those applications which are unsuccessful. Rather, we instead consider the general conditions for the population in the country itself, not the profile of claimants who have made applications to the UK. Broadly speaking, we would look to see what evidence there is of persecution or human rights breaches within a country and how widespread such treatment is. In considering the 10 countries listed in the draft order, we took carefully into account our published country of origin information material which utilises a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosable governmental and non-governmental sources. We also consulted the independent Advisory Panel on Country Information on that material. I should briefly remind the Committee that the Advisory Panel on Country Information is an independent body created under the 2002 Act to advise the Secretary of State on the accuracy and objectivity of country information produced by the Home Office in the context of asylum applications. During the passage of the 2002 Act, Ministers gave clear assurances that the panel would be consulted on country material being used by the Home Office before making an order to designate a country. The panel’s role in the country designation process is solely to consider the country of origin information material. It has no power to comment on the decision whether or not to designate. The panel considered the country of origin information produced on the 10 countries produced in the draft order at its recent meeting and found it to be generally an accurate, balanced and comprehensive representation of the source material and country conditions. Following the panel’s advice, additional information was added or amendments made as appropriate. The extension to the list to include these countries is not to say that they are totally safe for everyone. What we are saying is that we are satisfied that Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mauritius, Montenegro and Peru meet the test for designation in full, and that Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and Sierra Leone meet the test for designation, but for men only at the present time. In the countries where we are proposing partial designation, the evidence suggests that women may in general be at risk for a variety of reasons, which may include a risk of female genital mutilation, trafficking, domestic violence and forced marriage, and that currently the level of protection provided by the authorities is not sufficient to conclude that the test for designation is satisfied in respect of women. The draft order represents a gradual increase and progressive use of the powers under the 2002 Act and builds on the programme to reform our asylum and immigration system. At the same time, we continue to ensure that we do not deny legitimate claims the right to a proper hearing and that we provide a safe haven for those in genuine need of international protection. I therefore commend the order to the Committee. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007. 19th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton).