UK: Asylum Bill (1)
01 January 1993
The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill finished its committee stage in December, had its third reading on 11 January and now goes to the House of lords with no important concessions by the government. Home Office immigration minister Charles Wardle refused to back down on the abolition of the right of appeal for visitors, limiting his "concession" to a right for a refused applicant to re-apply immediately (and pay a second fee) without having the refusal held against him. Even Tories (apart from rightists such as Roger Gale) were disappointed by the minister's rigidity on this and on his refusal to agree to the provision of "advocates" (friends) to unaccompanied refugee children to help them through all stages of the asylum process.
The appeals procedure for asylum-seekers, which in "manifestly unfounded" cases are supposed to be dealt with within a week, were justified by the minister on the ground that at present there are "too many lawyers and too many opportunities for delay ... ". Legal aid is of course not available for representation in the immigration appeals system.
Provisions allowing local authorities to check the immigration status of applicants for housing to see if they were asylum- seekers emerged unscathed, despite the CRE's advice that they were racially discriminatory and in direct conflict with all existing guidance on homelessness and race relations legislation.
Fingerprinting of all asylum-seekers and their dependants, including children, was justified by the 1,600 suspected cases of multiple applications for asylum or for benefits (although only 27 prosecutions and 11 convictions had so far resulted). Wardle's argument was that once we had fingerprinting we would know how many multiple claims there were. "A bona fide applicant could", he said, "make an application, go through the process, and after resting for a week, could think, 'I could do this all over again'. Some people have done that" he assured an incredulous committee. Fingerprinting of children, with no lower age limit, was justified by Wardle on the ground that "there are indications that in some cases asylum-seekers have borrowed children when making an asylum application in order subsequently to inflate benefit claims". No evidence was given for this startling allegation. The fingerprinting provisions will apply to asylum-seekers already here, and the government intends to start by "targeting groups that cause particular anxiety ... " On past experience this is likely to mean Africans and Asians rather than Bosnians. The minister did not clarify the important question of against what will the fingerprints be checked, except to indicate that in some cases it would be necessary to call in the asylum-seeker to have his fingerprints taken again.
In an interesting exchange on the secrecy and lack of accountability surrounding the meetings of European ministers and officials, Wardle complained: "I can't conduct negotiations in a shop window." He thought it "utterly unrealistic" to expose to the public gaze discussions before formal agreements had been reached. No one pointed out that it is pretty useless making such discussions public after the ink is dry on the agreement.
Parliamentary Debates: Standing Committee A: Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill November-December 1992.