Asylum-seekers draconian new measures
01 September 1991
On 2 July Home Secretary Kenneth Baker announced draconian new measures to deal with asylum-seekers, in the light of what the government sees as an unacceptable increase in their numbers in the past two years. The proposals include: a doubling of the fines to œ2000 per passenger for carriers (air and sea) bringing in undocumented passengers or passengers with false documents; immediate removal for those who travelled through a safe third country; identity-checking measures including fingerprinting and possibly DNA testing to prevent "fraudulent multiple applications"; a new appeals system with a "fast track" to screen out "manifestly unfounded" applications immediately; and the removal of free legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme for all immigration cases.
While the numbers of people claiming political asylum in the UK have increased in the past two years, from about 5000 applications in 1989 to over 20,000 in 1990, there is no evidence to substantiate the Home Office claim that the increase is due to "bogus" refugees. The majority of new arrivals are from countries such as Zaire, Angola, Turkey, Somalia, Ethiopia and Uganda - countries either racked by civil war or condemned by Amnesty International and other monitoring agencies for human rights abuses. In Uganda, for example, four months after the British government imposed a visa requirement which effectively closed the door on Ugandan refugees coming to Britain a report from the New York Bar Association in August 1991 noted the continued suppression of political parties and called on the government to fulfil its promises on human rights.
Most press attention, and opposition, has focused on the ending of free legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme to all immigrants, not just asylum-seekers. At present legal aid is not available for immigration appeals, which have to be paid for privately, but someone seeking advice or help with an immigration problem can go to a law centre or solicitor, who can claim payment within certain limits from the Legal Aid Board. This legal help has literally meant the difference between life and death for many asylum-seekers. After intervention by lawyers, the Home Office has changed its mind and granted refugee status to many whom it had intended to remove. Lawyers have successfully challenged many illegal practices by the Home Office, and through legal challenges have improved the investigation of asylum- seekers' claims. The right of appeal, now being offered for the first time to rejected asylum-seekers, is a result of a ruling by the European Commission on Human Rights that the lack of such a right is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The new proposals would mean that even this free access to lawyers would cease, and the only source of free advice would be the Home Office-funded United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service (UKIAS). Race relations and immigration lawyers suggest that such a move might be contrary to the Race Relations Act, and a strong campaign is underway to which the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has added its voice. UKIAS has rejected the monopoly role and the money that went with it, and its future is now in doubt, while the Home Office seeks alternative agencies to take the contract. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) is also said to have rejected the role of monopoly immigration adviser.
The proposal to end free independent legal advice is only one of five, the other proposals having been overshadowed. Of these, the removal of asylum-seekers to safe countries through which they travelled has in fact been in operation since July 1990, a month after Britain signed the Dublin Convention along with its eleven EC partners. The Convention, which is outside the jurisdiction of the EC, assigns responsibility for considering an asylum application to the country which first allowed the asylum-seeker in to Europe. The Con