Select Committee on Home Affairs Second Report


1  INTRODUCTION

1. Asylum is in the forefront of current political issues. We have carried out an inquiry into Asylum Applications, to follow up our previous reports on Border Controls (2000)[2] and Asylum Removals (May 2003).[3] During the course of this inquiry the Government has announced several new initiatives, culminating in the publication of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill on 27 November 2003. In order to keep track of these initiatives we have taken evidence from the relevant Minister on no fewer than five occasions in the past eight months.[4] We produced a separate report on the new Bill in time for its Second Reading debate on 17 December 2003.[5] In the present report we take a broader look at the issues underlying asylum policy.

2. The UK has a long and praiseworthy tradition of offering asylum to people fleeing from persecution in their own countries. In recent years a steep increase in the number of those claiming asylum in the UK has led to calls for the right to claim asylum to be restricted. Public concern has been driven by widespread fears that the asylum system is being abused, particularly by economic migrants posing as refugees, that the numbers of people entering the country as asylum seekers or illegal immigrants have become unmanageable, and that those found to have no right to be here have not been removed. There are genuine grounds for concern on these matters, and in our report on asylum removals we criticised those who are in a state of 'denial' over the reality of the problem. The necessary public debate over the issue of asylum should not excuse the inflammatory reporting in some sections of the press which has led to an exaggerated sense of public alarm, and created a danger that all claimants will be demonised. The Press Complaints Commission recently issued a warning to newspapers about their coverage of asylum issues, stating that "inaccurate, misleading or distorted reporting may generate an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts".[6]

3. We believe that the key to winning public support for a sensible and workable asylum policy is for the Government to demonstrate that it is in control of events. Perceptions are important: the general public must see clear evidence that the claims of asylum seekers are being fairly assessed and competently processed. As we stated in our report on asylum removals, the need is for an approach which is both efficient and humane. It is important that the asylum issue should not be treated in isolation from the problem of illegal working and the need for a managed immigration policy. We also believe that the UK should do more to assist developing countries to deal with the large numbers of refugees within their borders who, through age, infirmity or poverty, are not able to seek asylum in Europe, and who are at least as much deserving of attention and sympathy as those who manage to reach the haven of an EU country.

The Committee's inquiry

4. The key questions we announced as the basis of our inquiry were:

    How adequately and fairly are asylum applications managed today? How did the backlog of asylum determinations arise? Is it being dealt with satisfactorily?

    How adequately is support provided to asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service?

    How appropriately is detention used in respect of asylum applicants?

    What will be the effects on the management of asylum applications of changes made in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Prime Minister's pledge to halve the number of asylum seekers by September 2003?

During the course of the inquiry we considered other issues, including the relationship between the asylum process, economic migration and illegal working in the UK, international co-operation in dealing with asylum seekers, and the possible future contribution of the UK to assisting refugees overseas closer to their countries of origin.

5. During the course of our inquiry we took oral evidence on nine occasions and received 84memoranda. Oral evidence was taken from Beverley Hughes MP, Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office, accompanied by officials of the Immigration and Nationality Department; and from the following organisations: Amnesty International, the Immigration Advisory Service, the Law Society, the Refugee Council and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. In addition, the following persons gave oral evidence in an individual capacity: Mr Mohammad Fahim Akbari, Mr Zemmarai Shohabi and Mr Hashmatullah Zarabi, refugees; Mr Tom Bentley and Mr Theo Veencamp, co-authors of the Demos pamphlet People Flow; Dr Heaven Crawley, Director of the Migration and Equalities Programme, Institute of Public Policy Research; Mr Peter Gilroy, Strategic Director of Social Services, Kent County Council and Chair of the Association of Directors of Social Services Asylum Task Force; Mr Martin Howe QC, author of the Politeia pamphlet Tackling Terrorism; Simon Hughes MP, Principal Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Home and Legal Affairs; Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP, Shadow Home Secretary; and Ms Harriet Sergeant, author of the Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet Welcome to the Asylum. The Committee also visited Dover, to inspect border controls and reception facilities for asylum seekers; and Croydon, to see the IND Asylum Screening Unit and the National Asylum Support Service.

6. In parallel with our inquiry, the Constitutional Affairs Committee (formerly the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department) has been conducting an inquiry into Asylum and Immigration Appeals. On 31 October 2003 that Committee published a report commenting on the Government's proposed changes to legal aid for asylum and immigration work.[8] We understand that a further report on the appeals system as a whole is likely to be published in Spring 2004. We are grateful to the Constitutional Affairs Committee for keeping us informed of the progress of their inquiry. In our report we make some comments on the asylum appeals system and the Government's proposed reforms to it, but, being aware of our sister committee's ongoing investigation, we do not deal with this subject in extensive detail.


2   Home Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2000-01, Border Controls (HC 163), published on 31 January 2001. The Government's reply was published on 28 March 2001 as the Committee's Fourth Special Report of Session 2000-01 (HC 375). Back

3   Home Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Asylum Removals (HC 654-I). The Government's reply was published on 18 July 2003 as the Committee's Second Special Report of Session 2002-03 (HC 1006). Back

4   Evidence was taken from Beverley Hughes MP on 4 March 2003 as part of the inquiry into Asylum Removals , on 11 September as part of our annual evidence session with the Home Secretary, and on 8 May, 21 October and 19 November as part of the present inquiry. Back

5   Home Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2003-04, Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill (HC 109), published on 16 December 2003. Back

6   Press Complaints Commission press release, 23 October 2003 Back

7   The inquiry into Asylum Applications was announced on 25 February 2003. Our press notices are available on the Committee's website, available at www.parliament.uk Back

8   Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Immigration and Asylum: the Government's proposed changes to publicly funded immigration and asylum work (HC 1171). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 26 January 2004