Evidence submitted by Asylum Welcome (AIA
9A)
SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION
TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
In response to the Committee's invitation, I
wish to make the following points.
1. The OISC
We are in accord with the proposals concerning
the OISC. We support his work on regulation and his efforts to
weed out unsatisfactory practitioners.
2. Race equality
We are glad that the Committee is reviewing
the race equality impact of these proposals. However, we have
always opposed the amendment which exempts the IND from certain
aspects of the Race Relations Act, and feel that this gives scope
for abuses. We should like to see that amendment repealed.
3. Appeals system
— We are wholly opposed to the proposal
to limit asylum seekers' rights of appeal. We would remind you
that the Refugee Council has statistics to show that a large proportion,
approaching one half, of all appeals against an adjudicator's
refusal to uphold an appeal against first refusal succeed when
taken further, even when judged by the Home Office's own standards.
— It is people's lives that are at
stake here. We know of far too many individuals who have for various
reasons been unable to pursue a further appeal and have been sent
"home", only to be imprisoned and beaten again. For
example, I could give you confidential details of a Tanzanian,
a Zimbabwean and a Camerounian who have been thus persecuted on
return. Others have simply disappeared, to the acute distress
of their families seeking asylum here.
— We object to the Home Office's blanket
accusation that those who exercise their current rights of appeal
are clogging up the system unnecessarily. This argument is used
to justify the changes. Some individuals may indeed be pursuing
a hopeless case. But the law and the judiciary exist to protect
those who have a genuine case, and they too are to be deprived
of that protection.
— We are very strongly opposed to the
removal of judicial review, since we believe that this safeguards
the rights not only of British citizens but also of asylum seekers,
and provides an essential judicial check on the executive arm
of government. A single line appeal before as yet unappointed
arbiters, whose responsibilities are as yet undefined, seems to
us to deny the freedom of individuals, and their rights before
the law. We in this country justly take pride in British justice,
which safeguards our citizens' rights. These should not be withdrawn
from asylum seekers.
4. Undocumented passengers
We object to the proposal to make it a criminal
offence to arrive without documentation. Genuine asylum seekers
may arrive undocumented through no fault of their own, (a) because
they are members of the opposition fleeing an oppressive government
that would apprehend them and probably persecute them if they
applied for a proper passport or visa; and (b) because they are
told to do so by their illegal "people smugglers". In
the latter case, they would be punished for the crime of others.
5. Safe third country
We do not accept the Home Office's classification
of some "safe" countries, particularly those to which
asylum seekers may be returned. Therefore we urge the committee
to reconsider this proposal. We know of two cases where people
have been sent back to Germany, a "safe" country which
has already refused their asylum claim, and has sent them back
or redetained them despite assurances to the contrary.
Helen Kimble on behalf
of Asylum Welcome, Oxford
11 November 2003
|
