Parliamentary Liaison - Immigration & Asylum - March 2002
Secure Borders, Safe Haven - White Paper on Immigration and Asylum CM 5387 - A Quaker response
1. Introduction
The Religious Society of Friends welcomes many aspects of the White Paper on Asylum and Immigration including:
- The abolition of the voucher system and its replacement with a system to be based on cash payments
- The commitment that asylum seekers will no longer be held in prison
- The proposed provision of more legal avenues for entry
- The provision of a gateway for asylum seekers to make applications from other countries under the auspices of the United Nations
- The commitment to legislate to address human trafficking
We note that the immigration and asylum White Paper is introduced in an area of increasing European competence, and welcome the commitment in the Treaty of Amsterdam [1999] to "absolute respect for the right to seek asylum" based on the "full and inclusive application of the Geneva convention." While we welcome steps towards the implementation of that commitment, the White Paper raises a number of concerns both over civil liberties and the well being of asylum seekers.
While acknowledging the contribution that may be made by temporary protection, it is vital that any such status does nothing to diminish the scope of absolute protection provided by the 1951 refugee convention. In particular we consider it essential that the existence of UNHCR resettlement programmes do not diminish our responsibilities under the Convention where asylum seekers have arrived via alternative means.
We are committed to a concept of citizenship that is open, inclusive and based on the equality of all people. We acknowledge that for many people their identity is experienced as at once regional, national and European. While welcoming the concept of citizenship as involving civic and political responsibility, there is a conspicuous omission in the White Paper regarding the rights of third country nationals. Such refugees in both UK and other EU countries, while legally resident and paying taxes within the EU, lack civil and political rights and freedom to travel. (2.6) The proposed education in citizenship may be a helpful guide to new citizens, but if this issue is not to be divisive it will need to be addressed sensitively alongside consideration of what guidance is to be given in schools and colleges. The proposed oath/affirmation of loyalty (annexe B) might be better based on the values of equality, inclusiveness and human rights than an oath of loyalty to the monarch. We wonder whether it is appropriate to ask for an affirmation of loyalty from refugees, which is not asked of those born in the UK. We are concerned that the proposals regarding citizenship (2.11 - 2.18) are being introduced in response to the summer riots and that the requirement that migrants speak English addresses neither the problems of poverty nor racism that are at the root of such tragic occurrences. We note that there is no indication as to what will constitute "certain limited exceptions" (2.14) to the requirement to learn English. We consider it would be unreasonable to apply this requirement to elderly dependent relatives who are entitled under the current Immigration rules to enter the United Kingdom.
We welcome the liberalisation of immigration for the purposes of employment but are concerned at the inequality of the proposed policies that would favour those with the greatest skills, and could further deprive developing countries of some of their most valuable scientists and skilled labour. We consider it important that any Code of Practice regarding "sectors identified by developing countries as potentially vulnerable to a skills drain," (1.20) is developed in collaboration with developing countries so affected. We are uncomfortable about a policy, which rests on a concept of "maximising the benefit of high human capital individuals, who have the qualifications and skills required by UK businesses to compete in the global market place." (3.18) Incentives to "give those at the top of their chosen profession the choice of making the UK their home" may undermine a process of sustainable development. (3.19) by increasing the pressure on those with skills to leave their country of origin. We are concerned that the proposed quota systems could have an adverse impact on unskilled or semi-skilled workers. A Green card system analogous to that used in USA, might be a more equitable form of employment related immigration. We would suggest that alongside this, further resources might be given to a bursary scheme to encourage foreign students to study in this country as a form of development assistance. Although the present Holiday Maker-Scheme is intended to enable applicants form all Commonwealth citizens to come to the U.K, in practice as the Home Office acknowledge (3.27) the vast majority of successful applicants are White and from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. This inequality on the grounds of race must be redressed.
Having welcomed a commitment to the introduction of automatic bail hearings in Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we are surprised and disappointed at the proposal to repeal Part 3 of that Act which would have implemented those proposals (4.83). Even at the removal stage, there is a cogent case for bail hearings, especially where delays are encountered that are beyond the responsibility of the asylum seeker. Automatic bail hearings would provide an important legal safeguard especially where there are difficulties in ensuring access to high quality legal advice. The issue of the lawfulness of detaining asylum seekers for "administrative convenience." (4.23) is due to be considered in the House of Lords later this year. The issue in the Oakington challenge is whether or not detention on such a basis is compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We do not consider that it is just or acceptable to deprive a person of their liberty, who may have already been subjected to persecution and unlawful detention, in circumstances where there is no evidence that the asylum seeker intends to abscond.
The "personal delivery system" of asylum appeal determinations (4.64) has been introduced by a change to the current procedural rules. We are not aware of any other appeal process where one party is entitled to know the outcome of the appeal in advance of the other. One consequence of these changes will be that it will be easier for the Home Office to remove an asylum seeker before they have had a proper opportunity to consult with their legal representatives as to the basis of challenging a negative decision. The intention to eliminate the possibility of challenging a refusal of leave to appeal by the Tribunal ( 4.66 ) is of particular concern.
We consider that there is still the need for further development on a settlement policy. While welcoming mentoring models, and community involvement, in the settlement of asylum seekers (4.101), this cannot be seen as a substitute for a comprehensive resettlement policy. In addition to a focus on language clusters in deciding where to locate refugees it is essential that they be given adequate access to facilities including expert legal advice. We hope that the United Kingdom can make the case at a European level for a directive giving the right to work, while asylum claims are being determined. We welcome the commitment to "successful integration of those settling in the UK today," but are less clear about the details of how such policies would be implemented. In relation to claims that fail we urge that consideration be given to a resettlement grant. We are concerned that the proposed immigration hotline (4.73) would encourage a negative perception of asylum seekers and could be an invitation to racists to make unfounded complaints.
The government`s proposals regarding asylum need to be considered in the context of the following facts:
i) As a result of there being no possibility of applying for entry clearance abroad for the purposes of obtaining refugee status and as a result of the Carrier`s Liability legislation, genuine refugees have no option but to reach the United Kingdom by clandestine means.
ii) That the Refugee Convention provides for some element of choice to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.
We are concerned at plans which would give detainee escorts the statutory rights to enter private premises, especially where such escorts have neither the training nor professional experience of the police. (4.81). As regards border control, there remain grave doubts over the legality of pre-clearance checks that might prevent asylum seekers, who could meet the criteria of the UN convention, from boarding aircraft. (6.5) We deplore the use of airline liaison officers in the Czech republic and are deeply worried at any extension of the principle of carriers` liability (6.13), which would put unqualified carriers in the invidious position of deciding on the merits of the asylum claims of their passengers.
7. Human trafficking
We welcome both the commitment to preventive measures in countries of origin (5.45) and legislation to make human trafficking an offence. We unite with a proposal of Anti-Slavery International concerning the EU Council Directive on short-term residency permits for victims of trafficking (adopted on 11 February 2002) and suggest it should make reference to the need to protect individuals who are unable or unwilling to co-operate with the authorities but who are likely to face serious harm if removed from the country to which they have been trafficked. We also support the proposal for the creation of a specialised agency to which victims of trafficking can be referred and a reflection delay of three months during which time victims of trafficking can receive advice and support and make an informed decision as to whether they wish to proceed with a prosecution. We welcome the commitment of the Government to bringing in detailed legislation to cover people trafficking, for both labour and sexual exploitation.
There is a need for far greater clarity about the roles of induction, accommodation, reporting and removal centres. We consider it is particularly important that good legal advice is readily available at the stage of induction. It is vital that any plan for accommodation centres is implemented with sufficient flexibility to allow accommodation with host families in appropriate circumstances and that lengthy periods of time in such centres do not jeopardise the process of integration into the host community. We are concerned that any legislation enabling such accommodation centres should not provide for powers that could lead to these becoming centres of compulsory detention. Inflexible application of proposals for daily reporting within accommodation centres (4.42) could amount to a restriction on movement that would have Human Rights Act consequences in preventing travel to meet with family members in other parts of the country. We feel it is important that a maximum period is set for housing in such accommodation. We are in particular concerned about the education of the children of asylum seekers. We are doubtful as to whether education is best provided within such accommodation centres and would urge that sensitive integration into the host community, and the quality of language teaching are given the highest priority from the earliest stages of the asylum process.
We welcome the replacement of the voucher system with a cash-based system and would urge that the level of benefit be raised to the current level of income support.
10. Dublin convention
The Dublin Convention allocating the EU country responsible for deciding asylum claims is becoming unworkable. The invention of safe third country doctrines has lead to a chain of deportations across the continent. Any system such as the Dublin convention, based primarily on country of entrance to the EU, will put disproportionate burdens on the poorest countries located on the south and east borders of the economic area. It would be far better to devise a system where responsibility for determining claims depends primarily on where the application is lodged while taking account of family and other cultural ties.
The "growing body of evidence," referred to in the White Paper, regarding leave to remain on the basis of marriages, which are not in fact genuine relationships (7.4) should be made public. The increasing of a probationary period for leave to remain on the basis of marriage could have a profoundly adverse effect on women in abusive relationships.
While absolute respect for the right to seek asylum must remain, we would urge the development of the international policies that will address its root causes in conflict and poverty. By putting conflict prevention; a massive reduction in international inequality; reduction in the arms trade; promotion of human rights standards; and polices to designed to avert the damaging effects of global warming; at the heart of development policy the UK government could contribute to political solutions, which would address not only the consequences of migration but its causes. We welcome the steps that have already been taken by Department for International Development in this regard. While the need for asylum remains we hope that the government can provide policies of reason and compassion that will emphasis the positive contribution that refugees continue to make to the life of our diverse communities.
Michael Bartlet, Parliamentary Liaison Secretary, Religious Society of Friends, Friends House, 173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ 11th March 2002
12. Conclusion
11. Marriage and family visits
9. Benefits
8. Accommodation
6. Strengthening legislation
5. Asylum
4. Highly skilled migrant programme and employment related migration
3. Citizenship
2. 1951 convention on the status of refugees
Quakers` history of involvement in relief work has given the Religious Society of Friends a particular interest in the legislation relating to immigration and asylum.
As a non-violent religious movement valuing the equality of all people, we consider that everyone is entitled to dignity and respect regardless of nationality or legal status.
