Asylum Bill (2)
01 November 1992
The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, introduced on 22 October by Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke, closely mirrors the first Asylum Bill which the Independent described as a "mean-minded little bill" (see Statewatch Vol 2 No 1).
The Bill's provisions to deter asylum-seekers from trying to come to Britain are mostly identical with those in the last Bill: fingerprinting (now extended to dependants of asylum-seekers), with a power of arrest for non-compliance; reduced housing rights; a "fast-track" procedure for claims certified by the Home Office as "unfounded"; impossibly tight time limits for appealing; and a checklist of unfavourable indicators (destruction of documents, failure to seek refuge in another part of the country before fleeing, political activity in the UK).
The Bill says that only refugees under the Geneva Convention whose life and/or liberty are in danger in the country they have come from, will be granted asylum. This leaves out of account completely the vast majority of those who are currently granted permission to stay. The Geneva Convention only applies to victims of persecution, not those fleeing civil war or violent disturbances at home. The latter are granted exceptional leave to remain. In the first half of 1992, only 3% of applicants for asylum were granted refugee status, while 57% were granted exceptional leave. The Bill thus leaves it open to the government to abolish exceptional leave altogether, or drastically to curtail its use.
Only two concessions have been made to the criticism made of the first Bill: an adjudicator can extend the time limit for appealing; and there is a right to oral appeal (but no representation under legal aid) for all cases including 'unfounded' ones.
More rights removed
To "balance" these concessions, however, rights have been removed from others. Those whose applications to visit Britain, or to go on a short course of study here, are rejected, will no longer have any right to appeal. This is justified as necessary to clear the backlog of appeals in the system and allow more important appeals (on marriage and settlement) to proceed. At the press conference to introduce the new, Bill Kenneth Clarke said of these appeals, "What does it matter? The wedding's over anyway".
This was a reference to the fact that under the present appeals system, someone refused entry to come to a relative's wedding in Britain has to wait over a year before the appeal (at which the Appellant cannot be present) is heard. Clarke's remark underlines the need for the appeal in these cases. Without it, the applicant is branded for ever by the refusal, and will find it almost impossible ever to be admitted to Britain. The removal of the appeal right allows even more arbitrary and racist decisions to be made at British posts abroad and at airports at home, in the knowledge that no challenge is possible. Its justification is rather like abolishing the right of trial for shoplifting to clear the way for more important trials such as murder.
The vast majority of refused applications emanate from the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean. A campaign against the Bill has been launched by the Refugees Ad Hoc Committee for Asylum Rights (RAHCAR), which is calling a march on 21 November at 12.00 at Hyde Park, with a rally at 3.00 pm at Trafalgar Square.