1 Introduction
1. On 27 November 2003 the Government published the
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. Most
of the proposed measures in the Bill had been announced by the
Government on 27 October. The Government had invited views in
a consultation exercise which ended on 17 November.[1]
2. On 19 November we took oral evidence on the proposals
from Beverley Hughes MP, Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration
and Counter-Terrorism) at the Home Office, Mr Bill Jeffrey, Director-General
of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND), and Mr Ken
Sutton, Deputy Director, Asylum Support and Casework, IND. We
had earlier received written evidence from individuals and organisations
including Citizens Advice, Mr Peter Gilroy (Strategic Director
of Social Services, Kent County Council), the Immigration Advisory
Service, JUSTICE, the Law Society, Mr Ken Livingstone (Mayor of
London), the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture,
MigrationwatchUK, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Refugee Children's
Consortium.[2] We are grateful
to all who submitted evidence at such short notice.
3. Our aim in the following report is to highlight
the most significant and controversial elements of the Bill, in
time for the Second Reading debate which is expected in mid-December.
In carrying out this scrutiny we have not had the benefit of a
draft bill, nor—in common with other interested parties—were
we given more than a few weeks' notice of the proposals even in
outline. In view of the fact that since March 2003 we have been
conducting a major inquiry into asylum applications, we find this
regrettable. We agree with the comment we received from the Immigration
Advisory Service, that "the consultation document is so lacking
in detail that it is impossible to respond to many of the proposals
in an intelligent way".[3]
We are also surprised that two of the provisions in the Bill,
those for a new criminal offence in relation to people trafficking
and for electronic tagging of certain asylum seekers, were not
mentioned in the announcement on 27 October. Whilst we appreciate
the Government's desire to legislate urgently on the measures
in the Bill, we believe that it is unsatisfactory that a Bill
has been introduced with insufficient advance information to enable
proper consultation or prior parliamentary scrutiny of the principles
involved. It is now essential that Parliament is able to give
full and detailed scrutiny to these far-reaching measures.
4. In view of these time constraints, we have not
been in a position to take evidence on the text of the Bill or
to carry out any detailed scrutiny of that text. For this reason,
the views of witnesses cited below relate to the proposals announced
on 27 October, not to the text of the Bill. In the report we have
focussed on the principle of the main proposals for which the
Bill makes provision. We deal with these under the following headings:
- Undocumented passengers
- Reform of the appeals process
- Removal to a 'safe third country'
- Restricting family support
- New powers for the Immigration Services Commissioner
- Other measures in the Bill.
5. We intend to publish our main report on asylum
applications early in 2004.
1 See HC Deb, 27 October 2003, col 1WS, and joint letter
of the same date from Beverley Hughes MP, Home Office, and David
Lammy MP, Department for Constitutional Affairs, headed New
legislative proposals on asylum reform (printed as an appendix
to this report, on pp 25-28, 30 below). Back
2
A full list of those who submitted written evidence is set out
at p 30 below. Back
3
Ev 19 Back
|
