| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. It had our support in the Commons and we are delighted to support it in this Chamber. This is probably one of the most important amendments. It is designed to bring a fresh approach in the determination of asylum applications.
First, perhaps I may explain why. I had the privilege of visiting the headquarters in London where adjudicators deal with important aspects of individuals' applications. Much of the source material is provided by the Immigration Service and often adjudicators establish their own information system to supplement what is available.
I have sat on some of the adjudications in the past and I have no doubt that adjudicators perform a very delicate task in sifting information provided by government sources and information available to them through the work of some of the valuable international agencies, such as the UNHCR, Amnesty International and so on.
Often, much depends on the accurate analysis of such information because, for many, a wrong decision resulting in deportation could lead to death. I have often seen evidence which does not tally with what is known about a particular country. It is often the diligence of the adjudicator that makes a difference between life and death. We must build on that. The Government have nothing to fear. In fact, I do not believe that our High Commissions or, for that matter, our embassies have the same depth of knowledge as the international agencies, which work at grass-roots level and have first-hand information which is required by the adjudicators about the country of origin.
I pay tribute to Amnesty International, Save the Children, Oxfam and many other organisations which have made a great difference to the status of refugees in the way in which their applications are processed. It is vital that such a centre is independent of the Government. There are a number of reasons for that. First, most importantly it establishes an element of fairness. Secondly, it builds the confidence of the applicant in the system; and, thirdly, it assists adjudicators to reach a decision based on up-to-date information about the country of origin.
The estimate by the Government shows a likely large increase in the removal of rejected applications. That has been estimated by government sources to be up to 30,000 per annum. In the absence of an independent documentation centre, many of the decisions could be reached on the basis of unsatisfactory information. The larger the number of removals, the greater the danger that some genuine asylum seekers may face a wrong decision. To realise that, one has to consider the work of the Medical
Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. In no way are we denying the right of the Government to remove those who do not qualify, but seek simply to assist them to reach the correct decision.There is a general acceptance by many people working in the field of immigration that that is the right approach. There is no need for further research. All such research would confirm is the weakness of the present system and the need for an improved approach. Today we have the opportunity to set up an independent documentation centre and we should proceed with that. We should ensure that it has the funding to make it possible. I support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment, which I support. It builds on the Canadian model. In that country an independent documentation centre has been functioning satisfactorily for a number of years. I believe that the amendment would be strongly supported by Professor Goodwin-Gill, the professor of international refugee law at Oxford University.
If accepted, the amendment would end the paradoxical and unsatisfactory situation which has cropped up from time to time over the past 10 years in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been giving out completely different and conflicting opinions about the situation in individual countries. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave the example of Turkey and one other example.
An independent centre of this kind would help greatly to improve the quality of first decisions in asylum cases, thus leading to fewer appeals and fewer judicial reviews. I hope that this will be pursued.
Lord Avebury: Most practitioners who have considered the country assessments from the Home Office, which are available on its website, will have noticed inaccuracies, omissions and delays in putting the information on to the site. The Home Office country assessments are meant to be amended every six months. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes, the situation in countries of origin can move rapidly. I shall give one example.
In Zimbabwe we pressed the Government to take note of the fact that the killings, arrests, torture and other violations of human rights of members of the opposition, and in particular of the main opposition party, were reaching a crescendo which justified exceptional measures not to send people back until a complete evaluation of their position had been made by the Secretary of State. For weeks that was resisted, until finally, just after Christmas, it was decided that we were right and that the removals should be suspended.
If the Home Office had been monitoring the situation as closely as other people had been, it would have agreed with us and perhaps some people who subsequently found themselves in great trouble with
the regime in Harare would not have been sent back. Therefore, the independence of the proposed centre is important.Any independent agency worth its salt would make certain that the information it provided to adjudicators was bang up-to-date. A situation can change drastically for the worse. People who were reasonably safe in a country until maybe a few weeks ago may suddenly find themselves at risk. If the information available to adjudicators is not bang up-to-date they may be completely unaware of changes in situations. Certainly that may be so if they had to rely on the six-monthly periodic reports of the Home Office, which frequently, in the experience of practitioners, are not complete. Therefore, they do not give an accurate picture of what is happening in those countries.
Earl Russell: I add to that briefly. I mentioned to the Minister the two pamphlets by Alasdair Mackenzie—No Reason At All and Still No Reason At All. In the second of those he pointed out that the Home Office was still returning asylum seekers to Kosovo after the NATO bombing had begun. Being not up-to-date cannot go much further than that.
Lord Filkin: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important debate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks to drive a wedge between the Home Secretary and myself. I assure her that she will not succeed in that. I find that I agree with the Home Secretary on almost all things.
As the Committee knows, country of origin information was established in 1997 to provide asylum decision-makers with accurate and balanced country information as the background against which individual asylum claims can be considered and assessed. It has been indicated that that is of considerable importance in terms of fairness, speed and trying to make sure that original decisions are well founded and therefore do not require to go to other and more complex stages.
The assessments do not contain Home Office opinion or policy. They do not interpret information. They are compiled from a wide variety of independent, reliable and well-recognised sources.
Although they are the primary source of information available to caseworkers, the Home Office assessments are not the only source. Caseworkers have access at all times to senior caseworkers with country knowledge and to the CIPU, who produce country assessments. Applicants are entitled to put any other evidence they think is relevant before the adjudicator or tribunal. The CIPU reports are not binding.
A number of criticisms have been made of CIPU reports. It is not appropriate to respond to them here and now. The current country reports are held in high regard. UNHCR country background reports often extensively quote from them. All other western countries use them as source material in their asylum procedures. That is not to argue that they are
perfect—that would be foolish—but it would not be right to claim that they are grossly flawed or fundamentally inaccurate. It is not a case for saying that we should not seek to make the system better.Last year IND commissioned a research project to evaluate the content and use of the country information produced by CIPU. That work will assist in identifying the scope for instigating more structured systems for quality-assuring CIPU produces. The research project's methodology involved interviews and surveys of internal and external stakeholders as well as identifying the approach taken in other countries. We have recently received the results of that research, which broadly validate CIPU's work.
Previous Ministers have undertaken to examine the suggestion that an independent documentation funded by, but independent of, government should be established to undertake preparation of country assessments. Probably the only example of that is in Canada. We had intended to do that in the light of research findings, but bearing in mind that an independent centre would be expensive.
My noble friend Lord Rooker was recently sent a copy of a paper by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, the president of the Refugee Legal Centre, which discussed the case for an independent documentation centre. It also introduced the option to establish an advisory board with appropriate representation from the different constituencies and published guidelines on the production of assessments.
We had already thought that a more cost-effective alternative might be to establish an independent panel of external people eminent in this field to provide scrutiny and oversight of the quality and content of the bi-annual country assessments and equally of the important bulletin updates that supplement them when time and circumstances move rapidly.
The evidence presented in the research project's report suggests that many of the problems which currently arise in the use of country of origin information during the asylum determination process would not necessarily be resolved by the establishment of an independent documentation system.
The research project's findings make clear that while the IND's country assessments are effective tools which contribute significantly to the asylum decision-making process, considerable value could be added to the quality of country information by establishing a user panel for those who utilise country of origin information, and an expert panel of topic and country specialists.
This work is already being taken forward: an IND working party is being established to take forward the research project's recommendations towards improving the quality and effectiveness of the country assessments and other recommendations, including ensuring that the draft assessments are reviewed by expert advisers.
An IND users' group has been set up to identify more specifically the information needed to assist in determining asylum applications. Initial discussions have highlighted the usefulness of greater knowledge concerning the availability of medical care.
We believe that the most constructive and cost-effective way forward will be to establish an expert advisory panel, which will assist in and inform the continuing process of improving the quality, impartiality and objectivity of the CIPU country assessments.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the situation in Zimbabwe. He was right in signalling that the normal period is six months, but, as I indicated, the bulletins are an equally important part of updating in rapidly moving situations. It is crucial that they are brought out rapidly in such circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded me of Alasdair Mackenzie's pamphlets.
In terms of implementation, first, let me repeat what was said. We shall be having consultation with opposition parties, both about what is proposed and about its implementation. I firmly intend that the consultation should take place well before the Report stage, so that Members opposite are aware of our thinking and have an opportunity at least to comment on it, both in terms of the printed proposals and in terms of their implementation.
Officials are currently considering potential membership from a range of experts from the voluntary sector, those engaged in research and those who are knowledgeable about the experiences of asylum seekers in their countries of origin. There will be consultation, as one would expect, as to their acceptability. It is important that we have the meetings with opposition parties relatively soon, so that noble Lords are aware of the broad thrust of our approach before we get into too much of the detail.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page