The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Byrne,
Mr. Liam
(Minister of State, Home
Department)
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Chaytor,
Mr. David
(Bury, North)
(Lab)
Clegg,
Mr. Nick
(Sheffield, Hallam)
(LD)
Cox,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Torridge and West Devon)
(Con)
Curry,
Mr. David
(Skipton and Ripon)
(Con)
Farron,
Tim
(Westmorland and Lonsdale)
(LD)
Gardiner,
Barry
(Brent, North)
(Lab)
Green,
Damian
(Ashford)
(Con)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Keen,
Alan
(Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
Lucas,
Ian
(Wrexham)
(Lab)
Morley,
Mr. Elliot
(Scunthorpe)
(Lab)
Simpson,
Alan
(Nottingham, South)
(Lab)
Southworth,
Helen
(Warrington, South)
(Lab)
Whittingdale,
Mr. John
(Maldon and East Chelmsford)
(Con)
Mark
Etherton, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Twelfth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 23 July
2007
[Mr.
Roger Gale
in the
Chair]
Draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Liam
Byrne):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order
2007.
The number of
people seeking asylum is now at its lowest level since 1993. That has
not happened by accident, but because we are considering such claims
much faster. Indeed, about 40 per cent. of them are now considered and
they are either granted or people are removed within six months. We are
removing more of them. Last year was the first time for many years when
we removed more people making unfounded claims than came into the
countrythe so-called tipping point. Moreover, by exporting our
border controls abroad, we are now stopping bogus asylum claims from
people making unfounded claims here. In fact, about 17,000 people were
stopped at the other side of the channel because of the controls that
we have put in place. We are now turning back the equivalent of about
two jumbo jets a week from airports throughout the
world.
An
important part of ensuring that the asylum system is fit for the future
and preserves our proud tradition of providing humanitarian protection
for refugees means that the system must be kept up to date constantly,
and that is the subject of the order. We are laying it under the terms
of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides for
orders by which we can designate some countries as non-suspensive
appeal countries. It means, in effect, that when a persons
asylum claim has been reviewed and deemed to be unfounded, it can be
clearly certified and the individual can then be removed back to their
home country. If the person wants to appeal against the judgment, they
can undertake the appeal from
abroad.
At the time,
there was a degree of consensus about the Act and the hon. Member for
Woking (Mr. Malins), who was representing the Conservative
party when it was being discussed, was reported in Hansard
as saying that he had no objection in principle to its clauses,
obviously reserving the right to scrutinise the orders as they were
provided. We are now providing the fifth such order under the Act. The
orders seem to have been working very
well.
Let
us consider the intake from countries that were designated under the
2002 Act. Claims from those countries fell by about 86 per cent. over
the first six months since its provisions were in place. When we
updated the list on 1 April 2003, claims from the countries that we had
designated then fell again by 86 per cent. in the following period.
When we updated the list on
23 July 2003, the intake from the countries so designated fell by 61 per
cent. When we designated India, intake fell by 52 per cent., and when
we updated the list in 2005, intake from designated countries fell by
34 per cent. As the Committee will see, those figures show an important
part of our reforms to the asylum
system.
To designate
new countries, legal tests have to be met. In particular, the Home
Secretary must be satisfied that she is comfortable that, in general,
in that state or part thereof, no serious risk of persecution of
persons entitled to reside there exists. Removal to that state or to
the part that is designated means that individuals can reside there in
a way that is not in general contravention of the United
Kingdoms obligations under the human rights
convention.
This
afternoon, I propose almost to double the list of countries that are
designated as NSA countries by adding Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Mauritius, Montenegro, Peru, Serbia andfor men
onlySierra Leone, the Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi and Mali.
The reason why we are adding those countries is that there were about
400 asylum claims from them in 2005, 300 in 2006 and 70 in the first
quarter alone of 2007. The Home Secretary has satisfied herself that it
is appropriate for such countries to be subject to such designation,
and I commend the order to the
Committee.
4.34
pm
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): It is always a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale.
I wish to make two general and
one specific points. The general points relate to the Ministers
introductory remarks. First, absurdly, he claimed that the reduction of
the number of asylum claimants was because of his own efforts, but it
is largely due to the fact that, thankfully, there are no wars in the
Balkans, so there is less demand for asylum in Europe. That is a wholly
beneficial development, but for the Government to claim the credit for
their immigration policy is absurd.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the
Member for Woking was right when, in 2002, he said that we had no
objection in principle to the creation of the type of list contained in
the order. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government made such
lists. They were much criticised, and abolished, by the Labour
Government, which then had to reinstate them after a few years having
realised their error. However, we welcome repentant sinners, and if the
Minister wishes to say that he is pleased that the Government have
reversed their original policy, who am I to gainsay
him?
As I said, the
official Opposition have no objection to the type of list contained in
the order, but it would be sensible for the House to scrutinise in
detail the countries that are being added to ensure that
traditionwe always mention in these debates that Britain has a
good history of welcoming genuine refugeesis
maintained.
I have
checked what the Government think of the various countries that the
order will add to the list. The Foreign Office website features country
profiles in which reservations are expressed about a number of the
countries in the order. I agree with the Minister, however, that none
of the reservations would necessarily preclude a country being added to
the list, particularly as the list stipulates the countries to which
the measure will apply for men onlyclearly, there might be
problems with returning to those countries women asylum seekers whose
application has failed.
I ask the Minister, however, to
address the problem of the Gambia. The Foreign Office country profile
states:
The
Gambia has suffered from a poor human rights record since the change of
regime in 1994. Both the commonwealth and the EU have been vocal in
their condemnation of these problems...The media has come under
sustained pressure through prosecutions for sedition and criminal libel
and frequently successful attempts by government to close down organs
of the independent or opposition press. Physical attacks on journalists
are frequent and are not properly investigated...Following the
apparent coup of April 2006, many of those arrested have been detained
without access to lawyers or international organisations, and well
beyond the 72 hours allowed by
law.
The fact that that
is the Foreign office analysis is serious, as is the question of
whether we can be absolutely confident that the Gambia is the sort of
country to which we should return failed asylum seekers. We welcome the
principle of the list, but will the Minister address those specific and
genuine
concerns?
4.38
pm
Mr.
Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I am afraid that I
have serious reservations about the list of countries included in the
measure. Like the Minister and the Conservative spokesman, we have no
objections to the concept in the 2002 Act that countries may be
designated white-list countries, which means that claimants from those
countries must be certified as making clearly unfounded claims before
they can be returned. As such, they would have no in-country right of
appeal against the refusal of their claim. I have no problem with the
mechanism, but I have serious problems with the inclusion of the
countries in the measure on two grounds.
First, simply, too much
information is available about conditions in the countries to suggest
that concerns about those conditions can be swept under the carpet and
ignored, and so allow the countries on to the white list. The US State
Department remains concerned. A report published last year stated that
in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
ethnically motivated religious
violence was often directed at ethnic symbols, clerics and religious
buildings.
The same
report also revealed that the previous year had seen an increasing
trend of women and girls being used in sex trafficking.
We know from well authenticated
reports, that the Kenyan GovernmentKenya is another country on
the listhave failed to investigate credible allegations of
police brutality and torture. More than 10,000 people have been
forcibly evicted from their homes in the past few months.
In Malawi, another country on
the list, nearly 1 million people required food aid, and yet
all men eligible for residence in Malawi will be added to the white
list. The horrendous conditions in the prisons in Malawi are worsening.
The number of prisoners dying every month has nearly doubled over the
year. I could go on, but those facts alone should surely be enough to
give us pause to reflect.
I am not suggesting that people
from those countries who make false claims should not be refused asylum and
returned to those countries. We need to retain a system in which there
is close case-by-case scrutiny of all claimants from those countries where that is justified.
Whatever the legal niceties of the provisions, the effect will be to
give a much greater automaticity unless, in exceptional circumstances,
the Home Secretary rules that claims for asylum from those countries
are clearly unfounded.
If I had strongly held
reservations on the basis of the information that I have received about
conditions in those countries, those reservations have been made all
the more concrete by the rate of appeals that have been made and won by
claimants in recent years. In 2005, about 45 men appealed successfully
against Home Office decisions denying them asylum from countries that
will todayif this measure goes aheadbe added to the
white list. If we go back to 2004, no fewer than 485 individuals from
those countries had successful appeals after their initial applications
were rejected. From Serbia and Montenegro alone, more than 1,300
appeals have been accepted over the past four years.
It seems to me
that there is a profound illogicality in considering appeals for asylum
from those countries in recent years, seeing those appeals granted and
now depriving people in those countries of the mechanism to continue
making those appeals. For example, given that more than 1,000 appeals
from Serbia and Montenegro were successfully made in the United Kingdom
a few months ago, will the Minister explain how conditions have changed
so radically and rapidly not to continue to grant the country
individual rights of appeal?
My hon. Friend the Member for
Westmorland and Lonsdale has just passed me a note confirming that
trend. In 2005 alone, 25 appeals were allowed from Liberia, 20 from
Kenya and 30 from Sierra Leone. I hope that the Minister agrees that
such figures merit a thorough response from him.
As much as I respect the
Minister for the work that he does, I was surprised to hear that his
opening comments this afternoon were all about numbers. The equivalent
of what number of jumbo jets has been sent back? He knows as well as I
do that, by definition, a fair, efficient, effective asylum policy is
not a numbers game. The system works and conforms to our international
obligation only if it detects those claims that are unfounded and deals
speedily with them, but extends compassion and humanity towards those
who are genuinely fleeing
persecution.
That
basic premisea case-by-case process in which one tries to weed
out unfounded from well-founded asylum claimsseems to me to be
the cornerstone of a fair and efficient asylum system. That cornerstone
is significantly weakened if countries are introduced on to the white
list without absolute certainty that conditions in the relevant
countries have dramatically
changed.
The objective
of further improvements to asylum policy should not be a continued
preoccupation with absolute numbers; it should be to ensure that the
appeals processand, by that, I include the process in this
countryis as effective, independent and fair as possible, so
that appeals are dealt with speedily and fairly. We should not try to
bypass appeals altogether by depriving large numbers of claimants of
the right to
appeal in this country in the first place. On that basis, my party will
seek to divide the Committee and will vote against the
measure.
4.46
pm
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful for the contributions of hon. Members
to this afternoons debate. I know that there has been a degree
of controversy about certain aspects of the policys past
presentation. It is important, however, to focus precisely on the legal
test at the heart of the measure. By designating a country under the
terms of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the
Government are not saying that there is a complete absence of any risk
of persecution in that country; we are saying that in general there is
no serious persecution risk and that removal would not breach any
obligations under the European convention on human rights.
A number of important tests must
be met before any individual reaches the point at which their claim is
designated as completely unfounded. The most important of those tests
is that each case continues to be inspected and examined on its
individual merits. The individual goes through the asylum process and
benefits from a full consideration of their particular circumstances,
and the mere fact that somebody is from a country on the list provided
for under the Act does not mean that there is any weakening in the
review of their case. If anything, there is a strengthening of it,
because the board of the immigration authority recognises the need for
the most robust possible oversight in cases from this country that
might be designated as clearly
unfounded.
There
are two further safeguards. The first is that individuals can always
apply for judicial review of the decisionalthough the fact that
few people apply is, I think, a sign that the policy is healthy. The
second, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam observed, is that
people can lodge an appeal from abroad, and the examples he gave were
good examples of individuals doing that. That appeal right is not
removed, eliminated or rendered defunct; it is still alive as a
possibility. The fact that people can make that kind of appeal under
the legislation shows, in fact, that the process is robust. I did not
quite understand the point that was made about Kenya and Liberia. They
are not yet on the list; they are the subject of the order before
us.
The key point is
that the legal test that must be satisfied for the purposes of the Act
is whether conditions in general are safe enough. If persecution or
human rights breaches were endemic or widespread, that test would not
be met. That is an important part of the evidence that is taken into
account when the review is
undertaken.
The hon.
Member for Ashford spoke about the Gambia in particular. We are
proposing only a partial designation for that countryfor men
only. We recognise that the designation test is not met for women from
the Gambia because of issues surrounding female genital mutilation,
domestic violence and forced marriages. We are aware that there are
issues around
certain actions of the security forces, treatment of opposition party
members, treatment of gay men, and restrictions on media activities.
However, that underlines the fact that each individuals case
should be judged on its particular merits. They must have recourse to
judicial review if they seek it, and they should be able to lodge an
appeal from their own country if they seek to do
so.
Some important
considerations in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, are
that methods of redress are generally available to victims of abuses,
police standards units are effective in investigating police abuses,
and the Bosnian judiciary is generally independent. In the case of
Malawi, which was specifically raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield,
Hallam, we propose only a partial designation. Some of the issues
around the treatment of women in that country are similar to those in
the Gambia, which I quoted a moment ago, but, in general terms, the
police are willing and able to offer sufficient protection. The Malawi
Government have taken forward much of that work as well as work to
combat child labour and child trafficking. I am satisfied that the
tests in the legislation have been met for each of the countries that
the order proposes be given a full or partial
designation.
My final
point is that any country that goes on the list is kept under constant
review. If we believe that conditions in a country are deteriorating to
such an extent that we are no longer in our own minds able to satisfy
the legal test that is set out in the legislation, we will not hesitate
to take the country off the list. That is precisely what we did in the
case of Sri Lanka. There was a general view that conditions were
deteriorating, particularly in the north of the country, and that is
why in December 2006 we took it off the NSA list of designated
countries.
The process
of constant review is important but it is no substitute for the
safeguards that asylum claimants have in this country for individual
review of their case, and recourse to the judicial system even before
the appeal stage is reached. As those protections are in place, I hope
that the Committee will achieve unanimity this
afternoon.
Question
put:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
2.
Division
No.
1
]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order
2007.
Committee rose
at seven minutes to Five
oclock.