APPENDIX 28
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
MigrationWatch UK
SUMMARY
1. In 2001 83,000 failed asylum seekers
remained in Britain. Asylum seekers are currently arriving at
the rate of 100,000 per year (including dependants) while removals
are running at about 12,000 per year. Thus those who set foot
in Britain have a nearly 90% chance of remaining—most of
them illegally. This failure to remove means that there is no
effective border control.
2. 80-90% of claimants are found to have
no documents, often because they have been deliberately destroyed
to hinder subsequent removal. Migrationwatch suggest that in such
cases, tax payer funded legal aid should be withheld.
THE SCALE
OF THE
PROBLEM
3. The Home Office have been reticent. They
are content to broadcast their estimates that 42% of cases are
granted asylum or ELR (including appeals granted and cases reconsidered)[27]
but shy away from the obvious corollary that 58% must therefore
be refused. They say that this takes no account of these who leave
voluntarily without informing the Immigration Service; the Committee
have already expressed their scepticism as to the likely scale
of such departures. They also claim (contrary to the text at footnote27)
that their estimate takes no account of outstanding legal processes.
4. Despite this, we can suggest the order
of magnitude of the problem. In 2001 about 126,000 cases were
decided. If 58% were refused then approximately 73,000 applicants
were turned down; adding 30% for dependants gives 95,000. Only
12,000 were removed. Thus very approximately 83,000 persons remained
in Britain illegally after their claim had failed. This is the
number, not of course exact, which the Home Office are so reluctant
to acknowledge.
5. This failure to remove may also be one
factor in the continuing increase in asylum applicants. In the
third quarter of 2002 applications were up 20% on the comparable
quarter in 2001 and up 11% on the previous quarter—producing
the highest quarterly total on record.
CAN SUCH
NUMBERS BE
REMOVED?
6. Clearly, it will be very difficult to
remove failed asylum seekers on the necessary scale. However,
there is absolutely no justification for permitting people to
stay in Britain who have no right to do so. This is very damaging
to the credibility of the system as a whole. It is also an indefensible
use of £600 million of public funds on the asylum process
if the eventual result is that 90% stay in Britain anyway. Such
a situation is already widely known among asylum seekers and will
become more so; it is already a major "pull factor".
There is no alternative but to remedy the situation if we are
to have effective control over our borders.
EFFECTIVE AND
HUMAN REMOVAL
7. The only effective and humane policy
is to deter unqualified asylum seekers in the first place and
to remove quickly those who fail. It is very doubtful that this
can be achieved under the present framework of law.
CONSTRAINTS ON
REMOVAL
8. A major constraint is the absence of
documentation. According to the Home Office evidence to the Home
Affair Committee, nearly 80% of port applicants and 90% of in-country
applicants had destroyed their documents[28].
In 2001 that amounted to just over 65,000 principal applicants.
This is often deliberate since those who arrived by aircraft or
ship must have had documents when they boarded. They destroy their
documents to make it more difficult for them to be repatriated.
9. Article 31(1) of the 1951 Geneva Convention
on Refugees states that the Contracting States shall not impose
penalties on refugees where the use of false documents could be
attributed to a bona fide desire to seek asylum. In evidence
to the House of Lords Sub Committee on the European Union, the
Association of Chief Police Officers stated that "arguably,
Article 31(1) plays into the hands of the organised traffickers
and facilitators who are strongly dependent upon fraudulent documents
when plying their criminal trade"[29].
10. Where there is good reason to believe
that asylum seekers have deliberately destroyed their documents,
there is, in our view, no reason whatever why public funds should
be used to provide them with legal representation. In doing so,
they are exploiting the 1951 Convention, the British legal system
and the British tax payer. Indeed, it is arguable in current circumstances
that destruction of documents indicates that the applicant has
been advised by a trafficker and is not therefore a bona fide
case.
11. Community Legal Service Funds are normally
limited to Appellate jurisdiction. However, since 2000, an exception
has been made for immigration cases and the Lord Chancellor has
exercised discretion to grant legal funding to asylum seekers.
(According to the National Audit Office, solicitors' fee alone
are expected to reach £150 million in 2002-03)[30].
It should be open to him, therefore, to decline to exercise his
discretion in cases where there is good reason to believe that
the provisions of the Convention are being exploited. This might
be challenged under human rights legislation but the courts have
a duty to balance the rights of individuals and the public interest.
We suggest that the Committee pursue the matter.
January 2003
27 Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Asylum Statistics
UK 2001 (09/02) Para 24. Back
28
Home Office Memorandum for the Enquiry into Asylum and Immigration
Para 17. Back
29
HL Paper 187, Page 139. Back
30
Quoted in The Times of 28 November 2002. Back
| 
