Asylum-seekers face draconian new measures
01 January 1991
Asylum-seekers face draconian new measures
artdoc October=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 ¼2000 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, as