Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003

House of Lords Monday 31st March 2003

Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall start by reminding the House of the context of this debate. The recent publication of the asylum statistics for 2002 demonstrated to us all the scale of the challenge faced by Britain and the need for robust and radical measures to reduce the number of asylum claims. The Government, anticipating the nature of the problem, took a range of measures to grip it. They included the closure of the Sangatte camp through joint working with France; the significant extension and strengthening of our border controls so that they operate on French soil; the adoption of new benefits arrangements; the acceleration of decision-making, with 76 per cent of new substantive asylum applications received in the first half of last year decided within two months; enhanced contact management procedures and a steady increase in removals.

The House is well aware from our debates on the NIA Bill that there are too many unfounded asylum claims. In 2002, about two thirds of claims were refused outright at the initial decision stage, and only around 10 per cent qualified for asylum. A significant number of the rest were clearly unfounded, which is unacceptable. The process incurs a considerable amount of public expenditure. For an individual family receiving both accommodation and subsistence support, support costs alone are some £10,000 a year. The processing of very many unfounded claims diverts resources away from processing the claims of refugees. Furthermore, it destroys the credibility of the asylum system in the eyes of the public, the implications of which are of considerable concern to many noble Lords. For those reasons, it harms genuine refugees, who may be tainted by the public's perception of the system.

That is the difficult world context in which we must consider the non-suspensive appeal provisions in the 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act. As noble Lords who were all active in debating the Act will recollect, it contains two key elements for dealing with unfounded asylum or human rights claims. First, it provides for a clearly unfounded claim to be certified such that a person could appeal against the refusal of their claim only after they had left the United Kingdom. Secondly, it identifies 10 states from which the majority of claims were clearly unfounded.

We have taken what I hope noble Lords will agree is a sensible approach to implementing the new powers. We have devoted our energies to applying the NSA powers to claims from the 10 listed states–alone, initially–and assessed their effectiveness over a four-month period. They could have been applied more generally, but we thought it wise initially carefully to bed in the process, listening to noble Lords' concerns about the measures by applying them to the 10 listed states. Today we have several months' experience to draw upon and can thus assess how successful the new provisions have been. So far, all the evidence is that they have been highly successful.

We have applied several tests in assessing whether the provisions have worked. The first is that the number of claims from the 10 countries has declined quite dramatically. That is illustrative evidence that a high proportion of claimants in the country were trying it on to see whether they could use the asylum route to become economic migrants. For example, in September and October 2002, there were well over 250 claimants a month from the 10 listed countries. Although the figures are not final, around 40 claims were made in January. So there has been a considerable reduction–from well over 250 to about 40. The figures support the view that virtually all claims made by residents of those 10 countries are unfounded and that people stop applying when they know that their unfounded claims will be dealt with quickly.

The second question is whether the procedures are working well. A concern expressed in the House was whether we would have in place procedures that ensured high quality decision-making. So far the procedure has stood up to the test, and we are optimistic about it. All applicants have access to legal advice and have their claims properly considered, with an opportunity to provide any evidence they have to support their claim. All decisions are checked by at least two officers, both of whom have been specially trained on the non-suspensive appeal provisions. The fact that a person is resident in a listed country does not result in a presumption that their claim is clearly unfounded from the outset, nor should it.

Nor are such claims automatically certified. A decision on certification is taken only after the claim has been investigated on an individual, case-by-case basis and assessed objectively. As one would expect, the great majority of claims are certified because of the general safety of the countries from which applicants apply. But that is not a sufficient test in itself. The individual circumstances must also be considered. Over this period, only 2 to 3 per cent have not been certified. That proves the point both that the vast majority of cases were judged to be valid, non-suspensive ones. But they were not treated so universally–some were not so certified.

In the January case of ZL v VL, the Court of Appeal, headed by the Master of the Rolls, unanimously dismissed a challenge to a decision of the High Court not to grant permission for judicial review against a certificate. In doing so, the court dismissed claims that the procedures at Oakington were not up to the mark. It said:

"In our judgment there is no reason why the fast track procedure at Oakington should not afford adequate opportunity for asylum claimants to demonstrate, where this is the case, that they have, or may have an arguable case".

We have always said that the failsafe element of the NSA process is the opportunity for individuals to seek judicial review. So the third question is how are the procedures holding up to legal challenge. Only around 25 JR applications have been formally lodged since the process started, and none of those has yet been successful. To date 20 appeals from those who have left the country have been heard. Twelve have been decided, all of which have been dismissed. Again, the figures speak for themselves.

Finally, we are removing a significant majority of those whose claims have been rejected. We are not complacent about that. We have no hesitation in saying that the NSA process is working and the procedures have shown themselves to be fair.

Having spent four months monitoring the scheme and implementing it carefully, it is time to consider whether it should be extended to other states. A prerequisite of the Act for any country to be added is that it meets two tests. The Secretary of State must be satisfied, first, that there is in general in that state no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that state or part, and, secondly, that removal to that state or part of persons entitled to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the human rights convention.

In addition to applying the legal test, we have taken account of the statistical evidence at decision-making and appeal stages and of the number of applications received from those potential countries. We have also had regard to the intention to expand the non-suspensive appeal process in a measured way. We have not, therefore, felt obliged to include in the draft order every state that might meet the legal test. We have included only those where it seems that it did meet the test and where the numbers made it sensible to do so.

Bearing all those factors in mind, we decided that seven states should be included. They were selected on an individual basis following the assessment process that I described. They should not be seen as a group, except that they have met the test and there would be an apparent benefit in their being added to the list of non-suspensive cases. We are satisfied that in all those states there is in general no serious risk of persecution, and that removal to them would in general not breach the United Kingdom's ECHR obligations. We do not assert that the seven states are 100 per cent safe for all residents at all times. No state can claim to be 100 per cent safe. We never argued for that to be the case for the 10 EU accession states listed in the Bill. Indeed, the statute from which I read earlier does not even require that. It uses the term "in general" rather than "universally" the case. However, they are places where persecution and human rights breaches are rare, and, for those reasons, the further seven states merit inclusion on the list.

I must turn to an area of some embarrassment and offer an apology to the House in one respect. When we discussed the issues in the Bill, the impression was created by the Government that, although the 10 accession states were listed in the Bill, the Bill gave a power to add subsequent states. I need not go into the exact detail of what was said, but it is clear to me that the House was under the impression from what I said in this House and what my honourable friend Beverley Hughes, the Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Community Cohesion, said in another place that we expected that, before adding further states, we would, as part of the process, be able to seek the advice of the advisory panel on country information.

We have, in a sense, been under the pressure of needing to move forward and address the scale of the problem that we face in trying to separate genuine asylum cases from economic migrants. My embarrassment is to find myself before the House at a time when, due to the pressure of circumstances, we have had to add seven more states to the list, although the advisory panel on country information is not yet up and running. I shall not labour the point, but the House will be aware of my embarrassment in that respect.

We are working systematically through the provisions of the Bill to implement all of them at the earliest opportunity. The House will know that over 70 per cent of the Bill's provisions will have been implemented by tomorrow, 1st April. However, when, in my preparation for the order, I became aware of the circumstances, I decided to bring to the House the best information that I could. I have discussed the issue with officials and with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office. We will press on with establishing the panel, and I can advise the House that, within the next month, we intend to write to organisations that we wish to see represented on the panel. As soon as nominations are in, we will take steps to appoint a chairperson from among the members.

The panel's first meeting could then take place as soon as possible thereafter, by the summer, taking account of the wishes and commitments of the chair and members. We intend to move forward vigorously on the matter, and the House will accept my apologies for not having had the panel in place–due to the pressure of work and the pressure of circumstances–before adding to the list.

The function of the panel will be to consider and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the content of country information. For any states that we consider adding to the list after the panel's establishment, we will, as promised, invite comments from the panel about the country information on which we propose to make our decisions. That information, as is the case for all countries, will be in the public domain. In respect of the seven states that we propose to add by the order, the Secretary of State will have an ongoing obligation to keep under review whether they continue to meet the test set out in Section 94 of the Act for inclusion in that list. The country information for those states will, of course, be the crucial component that must be kept under review, and the views of the panel on the content of that information will be taken into account for those seven states as it will for other countries.

In view of the successful operation of the safe country procedures to date and the successful outcomes in the courts, we decided that it would be appropriate to take a measured step in adding to the list at this stage. I have said that the panel will be set up as soon as possible, and we will have regard to its comments on country information relating to the seven states or any future ones. I have already mentioned the procedural safeguards that apply to the consideration of claims from residents of listed states. The same procedures will, of course, be in place for the additions to the list. If a claim, after individual consideration, is held not to be clearly unfounded, it will not be certified. If a claim is held to be well founded, as some will be, leave to enter or remain will be granted.

The order is a sensible and measured step towards the increased use of non-suspensive appeals. I commend it to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].–(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Dholakia rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets that the order has been introduced before the establishment of an Advisory Panel on Country Information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not underestimate the Minister's task of dealing with a large number of applications from asylum seekers. I am aware that the Minister is closely involved with our European partners in examining how a Europe-wide policy on asylum matters can be established. The Minister need not have apologised. He has always shared his concerns with your Lordships' House, and I appreciate that.

It is in everyone's interest that asylum applications should be dealt with speedily and that those who qualify to remain should be settled into the community without much delay. Equally, the primary task of such a speedy system is to ensure that fairness is not sacrificed to speed. I am aware that a fast-track pilot scheme was announced. It appeared on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website. It would be helpful if adequate consultation with the relevant non-departmental bodies, such as the Refugee Legal Centre, could be established prior to the project, which, I understand, is to be implemented on 7th April. We need information about the detail of procedures and timescales for the initial decision-making process.

There ought to be public confidence in the system. If that exists and the system is fair and just, that will alleviate many of the problems associated with the delays. Public confidence will be shaped by the quality of service and a decision-making process that can distinguish genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants. We have already supported the Government's action on managed migration and matters relating to seasonal workers. Those of us on these Benches and on the Conservative Benches supported the establishment of an advisory panel on country information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We were motivated by the fact that, in some cases, a wrong decision at this end could have serious consequences for the applicant.

If an appeal is denied here, the next best option is to have up-to-date information about the country to which the applicant is to be deported. Why has it taken so long to proceed, when we have agencies such as Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, Amnesty International and others at the coalface in those countries and have a wealth of information about what goes on there? The enlargement of the "white list" should go hand-in-hand with the work of the advisory panel.

I am delighted with the Minister's explanation of how such a panel would be set up shortly. However, I must explain what I regret about the order. The decision to extend the "white list" of 10 EU accession states in central and eastern Europe to include seven more countries will mean that applications from thousands more asylum seekers will officially be presumed to be unfounded. Ten states are listed in Section 94 and Section 115: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Slovenia. At the time of the passage of those sections, our criticism was deflected and, to some extent, we even accepted the explanation that those countries were EU applicant countries and met all the human rights requirements.

As Beverley Hughes stated on 5th November 2002, all those 10 countries are democracies. They have functioning criminal justice systems, a commitment to human rights and to targeting and eradicating elements of society that discriminate against minority groups. She also highlighted the fact that in those countries more than 90 per cent of those who appealed against a refusal to grant asylum had their appeals dismissed.

At a recent meeting in Luxembourg, as noble Lords will know, the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a declaration that member states should start from the presumption that any asylum application from a national of one of the 10 states was manifestly unfounded. That view is not universally shared. The order adds Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, Jamaica, Macedonia and Romania. Can similar things be said about those seven countries as can be said about the existing "white list" countries?

According to the Guardian on 7th February 2003, Mr Blunkett intends to,

"build upon the success by adding a further 7 countries–all democracies with effective criminal justice systems, in which it is frankly not credible to suggest people routinely fear for their lives".

According to the same Guardian article, the parliamentary Joint Committee published a report a year ago contending that the United Nations did not accept that any one of the seven countries to be added to the "white list" could be declared safe. The UNHCR says that, in its experience, it is impossible to exclude, as a matter of law, the possibility that an individual could have a well founded fear of persecution in any country, however great that country's commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

Safe country lists are at odds with the fundamental premise of refugee protection that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution and to be given access to fair and efficient asylum procedures. The UNHCR argues that a safe country list must never be used to bar asylum seekers from entering the asylum procedure altogether.

What is the common factor that binds these countries together? On what basis have they been chosen? Who has decided that they carry no risk of serious persecution?

Moreover, it is important to question why the Government are adding to the white lists when Section 94 is not yet in force and Section 115 has only just come into force. I propose that it is necessary to establish whether the lists function effectively before they are extended. According to the Immigration Advisory Service, the effect of these measures on the numbers will be small. It argues that,

"the impact of adding these countries to the 'white list' is unlikely to be great . . . The figures for the last quarter of 2002 show that 270 Albanians, 565 Jamaicans and 380 Romanians claimed asylum. Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) were not even listed separately but came within the total for 'Europe Other' amounting to 65 or 'Other Former Yugoslavia' amounting to 30. On an annualized basis this is less than 5,000 individuals–some 5 per cent of applicants. The Minister should be asked how many asylum seekers came from Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo). Is this worth the effort and expense to the taxpayers"?

We have many specific concerns about each of these countries as potential safe havens for asylum seekers. Organised crime is a major problem across some of the central and eastern European countries, such as Albania and Moldova, where there are high levels of violent crime associated with gang operations.

According to the US Department of State, police officers in Albania are largely untrained, ill paid and often unreliable–a fact that is regarded as a major hindrance to public order and internal security. There is widespread police corruption. There are credible accounts of judges being intimidated or bribed by powerful criminals. Albania is a major point of origin and transit in the trafficking of women and children.

Although the Albanian Government have an anti-trafficking strategy, the police force and judiciary are generally reluctant to view trafficking as a serious human rights violation. Indeed, the US Department of State has also reported that Albanian police are frequently involved, directly or indirectly, in the trafficking of women for prostitution. This is a huge concern for the organisation Women Against Rape which works with individuals who have suffered physical abuse due to their ethnic origins.

The Immigration Advisory Service is concerned that the police may fail to offer sufficient protection for those who are targeted by criminal gangs. The case, Albert Shperdheja v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, UKIATO3127, is a clear example that it was held that,

"the authorities in Albania will not be able to offer this particular Appellant the protection that he needs in the lights of their unreliability, ineptitude and widespread corruption".

Although there is no evidence of the systematic abuse of human rights as a matter of state policy, Albania faces a number of human right challenges. According to the FCO these are exacerbated by institutional weakness, endemic corruption and poorly developed democratic and civic culture. It argues that the implementation of human rights legislation has been flawed and that Government attention has been diverted by a series of political and economic crises.

Similar problems exist in several of the other seven countries to be added to the white list. In Jamaica, the Immigration Advisory Service remains concerned about police brutality and impunity, arbitrary arrests and detention, an over-burdened judiciary, poor prison conditions, violence and discrimination against women and homosexuals, cases of social discrimination against persons with disability and members of the Rastafarian religion.

Furthermore, Jamaica is reported to have one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world. It has a history of violence by gangs and rival political parties. Statistics show that more than 920 people were murdered in 2002 due to rising levels of crime and violence. This problem is exacerbated by the negative influence that the police have on the community. They are not seen to be committed to their responsibility to provide protection to the public.

In addition to these widespread problems, there is concern about the welfare of specific communities who are targeted and discriminated against in these countries. Ethnic minority groups, such as Roma and Egyptians, are targeted in Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. UNHCR reports from January 2003 state that these groups in particular should,

"continue to benefit from international protection in countries of asylum".

In this vein, the Immigration Advisory Service has grave reservations about the IND failing to take UNHCR's opinion into account with regard to these groups.

As a further example, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the legal status and protection on the ground in Kosovo remain unstable. On one hand, ethnic Albanians continue to call for independence and have complained that UNMIK is taking too long to hand over authority. On the other hand, the Serbian President wrote to NATO and the Security Council requesting permission for Serbian police and military forces to return to Kosovo. According to the BBC, Kosovo was supposed to get 4,700 international police to establish law and order, but as of February 2002 there were fewer than 2,400 police. K-FOR is therefore involved in policing, which indicates that there is serious doubt as to whether protection will ever be made available to ethnic minority groups.

Adequate protection is not available in Kosovo for the groups of people mentioned above. Adding them to the Section 115 white list could put individuals at serious risk of a return to persecution and treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.

A further point of concern is procedural. I should like to draw attention to the fast-track Oakington reception centre near Cambridge, where the asylum seekers will be sent first and where applications will be assessed within 10 days. On 7th February 2003, the Guardian reported that it is here that those who cannot,

"rebut the presumption that their asylum or human rights claim is clearly unfounded"

will be rejected.

It is important to underscore that this announcement comes shortly after the disclosure that the £4.5 million Oakington centre is so underused that on one day in January only 32 or its 250 places were in use. Is this an attempt by the Government to find an appropriate use for the centre?

I should like to highlight that the Government promised that they would create an independent advisory panel on country-specific information. Now that we have that information, it is to be hoped that they will continue to make and influence the decision-making process in relation to individual applicants. Beverley Hughes has vaguely stipulated that the Government expect to establish an advisory panel on country information "in the coming months" and I am delighted that the Minister is going to invite the appropriate people with qualifications to comment.

We have always been against the concept of a white list and, as we recall, even the Labour Party was against one when it was in opposition. We continue to believe that each case should be judged according to its own merits and should consider the particular facts of each individual case. That will not undermine the quality of decision-making, especially when one takes into account the quality of information available to the Home Office with regard to a specific country, in particular since situations in a country abroad can change quickly.

It was not my intention in any way to try to hinder the process that the Minister is trying to establish under the order. I want simply to show my regret that so many other factors need to be taken into account when adding to the list. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at the end insert "but this House regrets that the order has been introduced before the establishment of an Advisory Panel on Country Information under Section 142 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.–(Lord Dholakia.)

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as was made clear by my honourable friend Mr Humfrey Malins in another place, we are generally in support of the order. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the original 10 countries in the list are all applicants for accession to the European Union. The other list which we are considering today comprises a much more disparate lot. As both my honourable friend Mr Malins and Mr Simon Hughes from the Liberal Democrat Benches made clear in another place, there have been a number of instances of abuse in the countries, many of them carefully documented by Amnesty International, which give rise to real concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has given a vivid description of the problems facing many of them, in particular Albania. I would add only that there is considerable evidence of police brutality in Romania and Bulgaria and of police indifference to the plight of homosexuals in Jamaica.

However, I welcome the Minister's detailed explanation of the process the Government have followed in assessing which countries are to be put on the list. We accept that. Nevertheless, there have been substantial objections from, among others, Amnesty International, the Law Society and the Immigration Advisory Service. I would like clarification from the Minister on one point. Does the scrutiny of the countries concerned extend to non-state persecution; for instance, a fear by an applicant that he or she might be attacked by a gang on return?

All this adds up to the fact that much will depend on the individual scrutiny of every case and the Minister has reassured us that that will apply. In the light of the serious abuses which have been cited in a number of the countries on the list, this is the only effective safeguard, at least until the establishment of the advisory panel on country information. That is a real concern which we share with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I echo his request for information on when that will be established.

Finally, perhaps I may point out that we are satisfied with the quality of the assessment teams which look at these cases. We therefore accept that the measure is necessary and with those reservations we support the order.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for their comments and questions on the order and I shall do my best to respond to them. I may not do so in the same order as they were raised and if I miss any points, I hope that noble Lords will accept a letter from me on the details. A great deal was raised and it merits a response, even if it does not come instantly from the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the fast-track pilot. It is intended to commence on 10th April and the aim is for about 90 asylum claimants a month to be fast-tracked from claim through to decision, and both tiers of appeal to removal, if unfounded, in about four weeks. The fast-track appeal procedure rules were laid on 20th March, allowing for a 21-day period before implementation through to 10th April. The aim is to test how quickly and yet properly we can make decisions and process appeals.

Officials from the IND and the Legal Services Commission are presently consulting legal representatives about providing legal advice for claimants before being put through the pilots. The pilot builds on the success of Oakington but goes slightly faster in building in a fast appeal procedure.

Perhaps I might digress for a second and contrast that, which is still trying to ensure that even what on the face of it appears manifestly unfounded cases still have a proper process, with what happens in a number of other member states. In some cases, when applicants come to a border, before they are taken across the border officials assess almost instantaneously whether they believe a person comes from country X or country Y. On learning the result, the person is then told to go away, not having been given the benefit of the care and consideration that we seek to offer even on a fast-track pilot process.

Perhaps I may weary the House with a few statistics which put into context the reasons why we have judged that these countries are ones with which in general–as the statute makes clear–it is reasonable to deal in this way, without prejudice to examining the merits of individual cases to see whether they should pass to a non-suspensive process.

I have not added up on a calculator the total number of applications from these seven countries in 2001 and 2002, but we are talking of roughly 6,500 to 7,000 applications in each of the past two calendar years. I need only give the figure of £10,000 per year subsistence costs, let alone the legal costs of processing those applications, to indicate why this matters. In 2002, around 7,000 decisions were reached. I shall set out the exact figures in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which I shall copy to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.

Of the 7,000 decisions relating to applicants from the relevant countries, only 270 were granted asylum on an initial decision. Adding the numbers that went to appeal–again, I shall set out the exact numbers in my letter–we are talking about a relatively small number of applicants. Four hundred or so were granted asylum on appeal. Thus, in total, around 600 or 700 applicants were granted asylum either on initial hearing or on appeal from the 7,000 that were originally admitted. That does not mean to say that no one from those countries should be granted asylum. All it signals is that a very substantial proportion of applicants, some 90 per cent, even when they have worked through the full suspensive process of appeals–I do not need to remind the House that a person can have at least two appeals, or three if judicial review is taken into consideration–is still found not to merit asylum.

I was asked whether a presumption will be created that claims from those seven countries must be unfounded. The answer to that is no. There is no presumption that claims will be clearly unfounded. I can assure the House that each case must and will be considered on its merits. Caseworkers have been specially trained to deal with the process and they will approach each application with an open mind. All cases are considered on their individual merits. If a particular case is not clearly unfounded, then it will not be certified and the applicant will be refused with a suspensive–that is, an in-country–appeal, or they will be granted asylum or leave to remain, if appropriate.

I hope also that I have been able to make clear the rather cautious process by which we are implementing the non-suspensive appeal. Here I mention again the specially trained caseworkers and the use of the skills gained at the Oakington centre. While not all cases are being dealt with at the centre–only those which merit going through it are dealt with there–I recall that in our debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, the centre was considered by all sides of the House to have a high reputation for the care and thoroughness with which it dealt with its cases. People were given proper legal advice and procedures carefully followed. Furthermore, caseworkers have been properly trained and thus the quality of their decisions was much higher than elsewhere.

I have asked whether there is a common factor, such as whether the countries are all accession states; there is none. We have not pretended that a common factor exists and we see no reason why there should be one. If any common factor could be cited, it is that, first, in the opinion of the Home Secretary these states meet the two tests that I have indicated under the Act and, secondly, the evidence from the historic analysis that I have just set out for noble Lords indicates that it is worth while to consider in principle these countries for the use of the non-suspensive appeal. In other words, substantial numbers of people come in from those countries and claim asylum, but it appears that the vast majority do not merit it. That is the common factor.

A whole range of questions was put to me concerning whether in all of these countries, in all circumstances, people were safe. Although I could go through many briefing notes, I think the fundamental point to make is that we have not stated that the countries are safe in all respects, at all times, for all people. It would be wrong and foolish to do so. We are aware of certain areas of possible weakness, some of which were also signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his remarks. It is the job of caseworkers to bear in mind those areas of potential weakness when they consider their decision as to whether to certify a non-suspensive appeal process. I would expect them to err on the side of caution where there is doubt.

The fact that there is a non-suspensive appeal does not mean that there is no appeal. It is perfectly possible for people, who have a lawyer as part of this process, to signal to the British lawyer that they wish to mount an appeal even though it has to be a non-suspensive appeal. People have done so and there are a number of cases where such appeals are going through.

As I have previously signalled, I do not believe that we have failed to take account of the UNHCR's view that it is impossible to say that a country is completely safe. As I said to him last week, I believe that Ruud Lubbers is giving excellent leadership in trying to ensure that not only European Union member states but other countries are better organised to deal with their responsibilities under the Geneva Convention 1951 while recognising that there is substantial abuse in the system. That is the challenge that we as a government face. That is why we wish to work closely with him in the future.

The fact that a country is on the list does not replace individual considerations. For example, in Albania, if a case is considered not to be clearly unfounded it will not be certified. I shall not go into more detail on that as it would weary the House. I shall respond by letter to some of the more specific points that have been raised.

As to Oakington and its occupancy, we feel that recently we have been rather harshly treated by the press on this issue. Let me give our explanation. The low level of occupancy at Oakington in January was a result of the success of the non-suspensive appeal implementation strategy for the 10 EU accession states. To focus on the quality decisions and to maximise the resources focused upon the new NSA processes, we restricted the use of Oakington temporarily from 7th November onwards. In other words, we wanted Oakington to be available to use its specialised skills, processes, accommodation and facilities to bed-in the NSA processes from 7th November through to mid-January 2003 for the 10 country claimants. The level of claims dropped so dramatically so quickly that it led to a situation where we were being blamed for our own success. It is harsh being in government at times, but that is the reality. Once we were satisfied that the numbers had dropped and that the process worked, we started carefully to build-up the throughput of Oakington's other cases.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked whether the protection extends to non-state persecution. The answer to that is, categorically, yes. If a case is made that a person is at risk of significant non-state persecution, he or she can get protection. It is not only state persecution that applies.

I shall not weary the House by going into more detail. I hope that noble Lords are aware of the care with which we are implementing the non-suspensive appeal process. We shall bear in mind the point made about whether there is a risk in some countries and be prudential in our approach. I shall not embarrass the House again by expressing my regrets about the advisory committee. We shall make vigorous progress in the timetable I have indicated. I hope that the House will recognise that we are approaching these matters with prudence while, at the same time, recognising that we face a serious challenge. This is a part of the process of meeting that challenge.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I apologise for the length of my contribution to the debate. From time to time, the Minister and I may disagree, but that can never detract from his openness and honesty when dealing with this subject. I am satisfied by what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Source for this page: House of Lords Monday 31st March 2003

The contents of this page are the sole responsibility of the author/s.

==============
Disclaimer: NCADC's web site is an important part of our work in educating the public on immigration, asylum and anti-deportation issues. As part of that work our web site hosts news and views from different individuals, organisations and campaigns working in the same field as us. The contents of named/signed articles are the sole responsibility of the author/s and are not necessarily endorsed by NCADC.