---

Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2)Order 2005

My Lords, I suspect that it would depend on the more precise details of the case. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes but it would be wrong of me to prescribe what would happen in each set of circumstances. However, the important point is that each case must be judged on its merits. The circumstances that the noble Lord described may well result in the outcome which practitioners seek. However, it is hard to be precise without a case and all the considerations to be taken into account in front of one. The noble Lord made a number of other points, one of which related to fast track processes. The fast track processes that we operate have been found to be fair by the courts. We do not accept that persons having their claims determined at Oakington, for example, do not receive a fair hearing; we believe that they do and the courts have upheld that position. As I explained earlier, all claims are considered on their individual merits, whether or not the claimants are residents of a designated state. In that context it is worth adding that we keep states on the list under constant review but do not think that partial designation rather than full designation is appropriate for the states currently on the list. We are happy with the designations contained in this order. The noble Lord referred to Jamaica. We have to make it clear that Jamaica is entitled to pass the laws that it does, whatever our personal views on that may be. While homosexual acts are illegal in Jamaica, we do not believe that means that the country as a whole does not meet the general test, nor that partial designation would be appropriate, as it is for the two states we are adding to the list today. Clearly, the point that the noble Lord makes about Jamaica may feature in an individual case on an individual application made by someone claiming that as a basis of persecution, but that matter can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.