Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his generous support of the order. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his comments. They reflect fairly that this is a process which has to be looked at in the round. It is one where we take a view and have to make a judgment call. As I said in my comments at the outset, we do not say that these countries are 100 per cent safe—indeed, that cannot be said of any country. The noble Lord cited various categories of serious criminality, but those things also happen in what we consider to be civilised western democracies. Obviously we do not want them to happen, so we take the steps and measures we should as a society to tackle them through legal process, and that is right. We also attempt to encourage such action abroad and to use our influence in that regard. We are saying that in general there is no serious risk of persecution and that removal would not breach our obligations under the ECHR. Further, it is the case that the protection needs of individual claimants continue to be assessed quite properly on a case by case basis regardless of the designation. I turn to the more general issue of human rights problems. There has to be a test and we think that these countries meet that test in respect of the designation we have made for each of them. Again, there is an exclusion for certain of the African states where only males are only properly considered. That is right and reflects the content of the country reports we have compiled. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is also right to draw attention to the high quality of those reports. It might be argued that they do not necessarily help the Government’s case, but they reflect our honest approach and clear appraisal which we think is the right way to proceed. We as Ministers made a commitment to Parliament that the independent Advisory Panel on Country Information would be consulted on the country information being used by the Government before we make an order. That consideration has been made and the general view is that it is balanced, accurate and comprehensive. The Advisory Panel on Country Information highlighted other materials, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Further on human rights problems, all I can say is that the general test is applied when considering whether a country meets the legal test of designation. Designation of a particular country does not mean that all claims from that country will be refused or certified as clearly unfounded. Claims will continue to be considered individually and there may well be cases where there is a grant of asylum or where humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain is appropriate. There may also be cases where asylum is refused, but certification as clearly unfounded is not appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to same-sex relationships. These issues are considered for all potential at-risk groups in assessing whether such a significant proportion of the population is at risk that the designation test is not met. That is the judgment which has to be made in those cases. Looking through the country information assessment, one can see where it is clearly the case. For some of the countries on the list, the comments make it clear that there is legislation one way or the other. A judgment then has to be made on whether there is persecution based on the existence of same-sex relationships. We believe that our list is sound and safe to operate in the way I have described. For those reasons, that is why this order has been put before the Committee for its consideration. On Question, Motion agreed to.