Parliamentary Liaison - Asylum Reform - November 2003
New legislative proposals on asylum reform
1. We appreciate the opportunity of responding to the Government`s legislative proposals on asylum reform. The following comments reflect the views and values of colleagues working with the refugee community and are informed by participation in meetings of the Churches Refugee Network and work as co-chair of Asylum Rights Campaign. The limited timescale of the consultation process has restricted the extent to which it has been possible to consult widely within the Religious Society of Friends.
Refugee convention
2. Present legislative proposals appear to represent a withdrawal from the commitment of the European Council (1999) to the "absolute respect of the right to seek asylum" on the basis of an inclusive application of the Geneva Convention. The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental principle of British law, and it seems hard to reconcile a commitment to due process with the aspiration of the present consultation document to restrict asylum seekers' access to the higher courts." The idea that tight asylum control leads to racial harmony is doubtful. This is especially so where the language of public debate is so distorted and based on a fear of difference and inflamed by the popular press.
3. High quality universal access to early and competent legal advice remains the only effective guarantor of substantive asylum rights. Proposals to restrict, reduce or otherwise ration legal aid for asylum seekers are likely to mean poor quality decisions based on inadequate information and to possible refoulement of genuine applicants to persecutory treatment. The present legislative proposals fail to address what the Refugee Council has identified as the single biggest cause of delay in the asylum system - "the poor quality of Home Office initial decision-making."
Undocumented passengers
4. We have serious concerns about the adverse impact that new offences regarding lack of documentation will have on those seeking asylum. Many asylum seekers are unable to travel with correct documentation and would be at risk of persecution if they did so.. We are concerned that legislation here be fully compliant with Article 31 of Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Safe third country
5. Supposedly safe third countries are sometimes unsafe; there have been cases where an individual has faced a series of removals as they are bounced from one country to another. The proposal that a person will not be able to challenge their removal to certain safe third countries on the basis of the way they will be treated represents an erosion of the right to claim asylum. Again, without judicial scrutiny there is a risk that the UK breach its international obligations. We suggest that individual determination of individual claims, and access to the Courts where appropriate, remains the necessary foundation for the rule of law in relation to asylum applications.
Restricting family support
6. Economic coercion is a blunt and unjust instrument of policy. We are concerned both at any extension of the ambit of present Section 54 Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 at the restriction of support presently available under Section 2 Local Government Act 2000 and Section 20 Children Act 1989.
Race equality impact
7. We would urge the government to pay attention to a potentially disproportionate impact that the above proposals could have on racial minorities and the conflict with prohibition on discrimination in relation to Convention rights under Article 14 of European Convention Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act.
Conclusion
8. We remain concerned that in responding to a consultation which itself concerns process rights that the cabinet office consultative process (allowing for 120 days) has not been adhered to. We hope that in determining the future of asylum law the government will pay particular attention to the forthcoming publication of Asylum Rights Campaign`s proposals for providing protection and that future legislation will be subject to a more extensive process of consultation.
Michael Bartlet, Parliamentary Liaison Secretary, November 17th 2003
