Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 120
120
Rejected
In relation to Georgia, the Refugee Council notes that “in December 2024 the current Government...
Conclusion
In relation to Georgia, the Refugee Council notes that “in December 2024 the current Government sanctioned five Georgian officials for serious human rights violations. This included the Minister for Interior and the Director of the Tbilisi Police Department. The press release issued by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office at the time noted that ‘UN experts have condemned the pattern of repression and human rights violations in Georgia.’”158 Rainbow Migration notes that, “[w]ithin the last year, the Georgian government has introduced repressive new laws to restrict the rights of LGBTQI+ people, including a ban on same-sex marriage, gender- affirming care, and on sharing information that could be perceived as ‘LGBTQI+ propaganda’ in schools and in the media … . Stephen Doughty MP, recognised this threat and has stated that Georgia’s new laws ‘undermine fundamental rights of freedom of expression and assembly, and risk discriminating against and stigmatising Georgia’s LGBT+ groups.’”159 The Government’s recent condemnation of Georgia’s new laws highlights a further problem with section 59 - there is no statutory review mechanism for the designation of safe states. Whilst countries can be added and removed by way of regulations, there is no legal obligation to review the safety of listed states.
Government Response Summary
The government maintains that country safety is kept under continuous review, arguing that a time-bound or time-specified review would be counter-productive by limiting flexibility. They explain that existing provisions allow for exceptional instances where claims can be substantively considered.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
As noted in the report, section 59 of the IMA 2023 has not yet been fully commenced. If commenced, it would broaden the application of the existing inadmissibility provisions at section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (NIAA), from the present focus—asylum claims made by EU nationals—to asylum and human rights claims made by nationals of the broader list of countries at section 80AA(1) of the NIAA. Section 80A NIAA already acknowledges that there may be exceptional instances where it is right to admit and substantively consider asylum claims made by EU nationals, notwithstanding the general safety of EU countries of origin. The section 80A(4) “exceptional circumstances” provision under which this may happen gives examples of when admitting claims may be appropriate. These examples are not exhaustive, and the open drafting allows decision-makers to make fact-sensitive assessments as to whether admission is appropriate. Guidance and policy support is available to assist decisionmakers in this work, and claims are considered on the particular facts of the case. This provision would continue to apply to the expanded scope of inadmissibility, in the event that section 59 is fully commenced. On the issue of the safety of the countries on the list, the Home Office regularly monitors and reviews the situation in countries of origin, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The corresponding country policy and information notes are published on the gov.uk website and are also kept under constant review and updated periodically. Should the Home Office assess that any changes in a country’s situation fundamentally affect the justification for its designation on the section 80AA list, the Home Office would seek to remove them from the list using the appropriate Parliamentary procedures. The Secretary of State has a regulation making power to add countries to the section 80AA list. However, the regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which means Parliament have opportunity to scrutinise any such change. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the country meets the threshold of safety set out at section 80AA(3) NIAA1.1 As noted above, the situation and safety of countries is kept under continuous review. We would note that, were section 59 to be commenced, any introduction of a time-bound or time-specified review of country safety may be counter-productive. The existing continuous nature of monitoring allows flexibility to ensure the prioritisation of the most pressing country- specific issues, reacting to live situations and events. This may be hampered by specified time-bound review processes.