Hatred against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people is deeply entrenched in the culture of these countries, and their elected governments reflect the prejudice of the masses. They know that persecuting LGBTI people is contrary to international law, and leads to friction with donor nations.

In the case of Gambia, when EU representatives were due to arrive in January for a routine discussion on human rights issues including the treatment of LGBTI people, President Jammeh ranted on TV that it was ‘an insult to our sovereignty’ that the EU should want to talk about the ‘children of Satan otherwise referred to as homosexuals’.

In Uganda, the offices of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), the umbrella organisation for LGBTI people, were broken into in December and equipment was stolen and damaged. Last June an LGBTI workshop in Kampala was forcibly closed down by the police. These and similar events occur against the background of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill under which the death penalty is prescribed for gay sex.

Many other examples could be cited of the violent prejudice against LGBTI people, often fuelled in Africa by American evangelicals and in the Islamic world by clerics of both Sunni and Shi’a sects.
It is obvious that the victims of persecution arising from the prejudice and hatred that is endemic in these societies may flee their countries, looking for sanctuary abroad. Some manage to reach the UK, where since a court ruling of 1999, a person’s sexual orientation was added to the definition of ‘social group’ to bring gays and lesbians within the scope of the Refugee Convention.

In the Coalition Government’s Equalities Manifesto, we undertook to stop deporting asylum seekers who had to leave their country because their sexual orientation put them at risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.

On the whole, the information provided by the Border Agency to officials deciding LGBTI asylum claims has improved over the years, though it is updated too infrequently.

But the existence of a general state of persecution of a social group, and the applicant’s membership of the group isn’t enough to settle a claim. S/he has to demonstrate that there are grounds for an individual fear of persecution by an agent of the state.

This could be that s/he was unwilling to be open about their gender identity solely because of that fear, according to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2010. But if the person has no independent evidence of his persecution, there is the risk that the application may be rejected simply because s/he is disbelieved, or that the story doesn’t amount to persecution.

Worse, if the applicant comes from one of the countries perversely certified as safe for men by the Government, even though gays are viciously persecuted there, his claim may be certified as ‘clearly unfounded’ by the Borders Agency, depriving him of a right of appeal. Lesbians still have a right of appeal.

It would be great to see a judicial review application by a gay man against removal, after his claim was certified, on grounds of gender discrimination!

We have come some distance on gay asylum in the last 15 years, but the Borders Agency still gets far too many cases wrong, as we can see from the number of successful appeals. With huge numbers of LGBTI people all over the world at risk, and our own courts still developing the criteria for proving gender identity claims, there is still a long way to go.

* Eric Lubbock, Lord Avebury, is a working peer, and Vice-Chair, Parliamentary Human Rights Group. He blogs here.

I should also mention, en passant, that Julian asked for suggestions for his first question via Twitter. Good man.

After the MiliCam exchange, I was left wondering how John Smith, or Robin Cook, or even Yvette Cooper or David Miliband, would have done in Ed Miliband’s place today. Much better, I suspect. The forensically accurate scalpel incision was missing.

The Border controls episode should have been Ed Miliband’s hotels fall into the sea moment. Instead, we got a lukewarm performance. The best Miliband could manage was to call the matter a “fiasco” three times. By repeating the word he highlighted his lack of debating ammo. His best bit was when he quoted the Home Secretary, when in opposition, saying that she was “sick and tired of governments who blame other people when things go wrong”.

I am surprised that Miliband did not throw in the retort from Brodie Clark that he had simply been following arrangements that had been in place for several years. Perhaps Miliband was afraid that this would rebound on him, as those arrangements started under Labour.

I am also amazed that Miliband didn't mention Theresa May's ignorance (on Monday) of which ports operated the relaxed rules.

Because of Miliband’s lacklustre performance, Cameron was able to mock him later when Labour MP Chris Leslie returned to the subject: “He’s trying desperately to make up the ground lost by his party leader” – said Cameron.

LibDem Tessa Munt asked a closed question (Tudor Court rules) concerning the Surviving Winter Appeal which accommodates richer pensioners who want to donate their heating allowance to those who deserve it more. She wanted an opt-out rather than an opt-in.

LibDem Annette Brooke asked for urgent government action to protect vulnerable Park Home residents from harrassment.

Paul Walter blogs at Liberal Burblings

As a result, the UK Border Agency is running a consultation, which closes on 1 July. You can find out more and submit your views via the UKBA website. Although the political commitment is clear, there are plenty of details still to be worked out, as the review document explains. So if it is an area you have some knowledge of, make sure you submit your views by 1 July.

From where I sit, helping to administer a small college, it is hard to discern any rational basis for this action. Among the 50-plus colleges some are seriously dodgy, but the honest ones are utterly infuriated at being associated with the bad ones. Meanwhile, plenty of dodgy colleges still keep their licences. As ever, the UKBA is its inscrutable “don’t’ call us, we’ll call you” (or should that be “never explain, never apologise”?) self.

Let’s put this in practical, human terms. We have students whose visa renewals are due in ten days. What can they do? Look for another college that still has its licence and spaces available? Go back home with tail between legs and without the diplomas they came for? Or go underground for a while? These are serious, hard-working, intelligent students, not the black economy workers who so exercise the right-wing press. They have employers who really value them at their part-time jobs too.

Multiply that up across the country and there must be thousands of students in deep trouble. I hate to think how many court cases against the government are being hatched right now, especially in the colleges that specialise in teaching law. Students with months or years of visa still to run will carry on being taught properly, but inevitably they will worry. They know that mud sticks, and that the owners of this college instantly have less money to spend on library books, IT facilities, student welfare, and so on.

Despite what some people say (including Matthew H commenting on my last piece) many small colleges do a fine job of teaching, with small class sizes and without the useless but tenured staff that blight some universities. Our students are often poor, and in need of a lot of remedial English tuition, but they are not stupid, nor criminal, nor inclined to be terrorists. At least not now, but I cannot speak for how they will feel if they are utterly shafted by UK plc failing to deliver the decent education they were promised.

The root of the problem appears to be that the UKBA is still “not fit for purpose”. It does not have enough brainpower to behave rationally and is just lashing out like a wounded animal. Policing private colleges is actually quite an easy task. It is not as if colleges hide their existence. Just send round inspectors on unannounced visits to sit in on a couple of classes, talk to a few students, and sample a few college administrative records. That would rapidly identify which colleges need to be shut down, which are altogether different from the 50-plus who have (one hopes temporarily) lost their licences.

* Editor’s note on the author: this article was written by the head of a private college, who also authored this post and understandably prefers to remain anonymous. They are a long-standing Liberal Democrat member.