My Lords, at first sight, the order on safe countries is a housekeeping measure to ensure that Bulgaria and Romania are merely added to the list of safe third countries as they become members of the European Union. I recognise that this is about the removal of third country nationals. However, it gives me the opportunity to reflect briefly on the merits of such a transition. We belong to a club with rules, but as the second statutory instrument shows, we can sometimes make up our own rules too. We cannot automatically assume that these two countries will become safe for asylum seekers overnight. No country can be said to be safe for everyone.
The noble Viscount has already mentioned the judiciary in Bulgaria. There are still serious human rights violations against citizens of those countries from which the state may be unable to protect them and others. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has again drawn attention to the individual merits of asylum cases. Can the Minister confirm that once a country is declared safe, no proper risk assessment is carried out before an asylum seeker or a trafficked person is removed to that country? Does that not mean that individual circumstances will inevitably be overlooked?
There was a recent case of woman who was retrafficked from the Ukraine to the UK, after which she was promptly removed without any assessment being carried out. Victims of trafficking from Bulgaria and Romania, who may also be third country nationals, may have protection needs elsewhere or in the UK. Women and children who are tricked into trafficking are still potential victims of further abuse or reprisals after their forced return. Debt bondage is another subtle form of family coercion. A number of trafficked Roma persons are known to have been retrafficked after their return, as family members were involved in the crime, and they had no protection against repeated exploitation. Those cases may or may not be subject to this order.
All I am saying is that we must ensure that the Government address their needs as victims of crime and ensure their safety. It cannot be assumed that every victim of trafficking would now be safe on their removal to Bulgaria or Romania solely by virtue of their being accession countries. There are concerns about this order among the refugee agencies. It might also help if the Government looked again at the UK action plan on trafficking and prepared guidelines on how best to apply the principle of ““safe country”” to individual circumstances.
Asylum (First List of Safe Countries) (Amendment) Order 2006
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Sandwich
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 December 2006.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Asylum (First List of Safe Countries) (Amendment) Order 2006.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
687 c1024-5 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:23:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362692
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362692
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362692