Asylum (Designated States) Order 2010

My Lords, this is the sixth order that we have brought forward adding countries to the list of those to which the non-suspensive appeal provisions in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 apply. This section allows the Secretary of State to add a country to the list if he is satisfied that there is in general no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside there and that removal to that country of persons entitled to reside there will not result in a general breach of the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The section also provides that an unsuccessful asylum or human rights claim made by a person entitled to reside in a designated state must be certified as clearly unfounded, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded. The effect of such a certification is that a person must leave the United Kingdom before appealing the decision to refuse their claim, while still having an out-of-country right of appeal. I should add that the test to determine whether a claim is clearly unfounded, and therefore certifiable under the provisions of the 2002 Act, can be applied to any asylum claim—those made by residents of designated states and those made by residents of other countries if the claim is considered to be clearly unfounded. Since their introduction, the powers to add countries to the list have been used on a progressive basis to ensure that the provisions work well and are successful in stopping people making unfounded applications for asylum and unnecessarily prolonging the appeals process. The evidence to date on the 24 countries already on the list demonstrates that this is indeed the case and that the powers have made a significant impact in reducing the number of asylum applicants from those countries. Asylum intake from the 24 designated countries in the first year of designation has shown a consistent drop of 49 per cent on average. On the decision-making process for considering an asylum or human rights claims from a resident of a designated country, each claim is given full and proper consideration on its individual merits by a fully trained caseworker. Applicants are entitled to legal aid and advice as part of the process, as well as the right of appeal against any refusal decision, albeit from outside the country. Fail-safes in addition to those already in place for asylum claims from those not entitled to reside in designated countries are built into the process. These include senior caseworker approval for each and every decision, thus ensuring the integrity of the decision-making process, and judicial review of decisions certified as clearly unfounded, where an applicant believes that their case was wrongly certified. As a result of this process, we have been able to remove from the United Kingdom individuals whose asylum claims were established to be unfounded and who have diverted resources away from processing claims of those in genuine need of international protection. In view of the successful operation of the provisions thus far, we have decided that the time is right for us to add a further two countries to the list. The draft order adds South Korea and Kosovo to the list. The addition of the latter is a technical amendment, as Kosovo was designated as a province of Serbia in 2003. Kosovo became independent of Serbia on 17 February 2008 and, therefore, is now added separately in its own right. The number of asylum claims from South Koreans is in real terms relatively low, but is none the less disproportionately high given what we know about the situation in South Korea. The assessment as to whether a particular country meets the test for designation is based not simply on the number of applications received from people who are entitled to reside in that country or the percentage of those applications that are unsuccessful. We instead consider the general conditions for the population in the country itself, not the profile of claimants who have made applications in the UK. Broadly speaking, we would look to see what evidence there is of persecution or human rights breaches within a country and how widespread such treatment is. In considering the two countries listed in the draft order, we took into account our published country of origin information material, which utilises a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosable governmental and non-governmental sources. I remind the Committee that we gave an undertaking to consult the Advisory Panel on Country Information on the country information that is used as a basis for the decision to designate a country. The APCI was an independent body created under the 2002 Act to advise the Secretary of State on the accuracy and objectivity of country information produced by the Home Office in the context of asylum applications. The APCI has now been replaced by the Independent Advisory Group on Country Information under the auspices of the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, so we consulted the IAGCI. The panel’s role in the country designation process is solely to consider the country of origin information material; it has no power to comment on the decision whether or not to designate. The panel considered the country of origin information produced on the two countries proposed in the draft order and confirmed that it is satisfied with the country information for these two states. The extension of the list to include these countries is not to say that they are totally safe for everyone; what we are saying is that we are satisfied that South Korea and Kosovo meet the legal test. The draft order represents a gradual increase and progressive use of the powers under the 2002 Act and builds on the programme to reform our asylum and immigration system. At the same time, we continue to ensure that we do not deny legitimate claims a right and proper hearing and that we provide a safe haven for those in genuine need of international protection. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.