Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


42.  Memorandum submitted by Tamil Welfare Association (Newham) UK

  Tamil Welfare Association (Newham) is a community organisation that has provided advice, support and representation to Tamil asylum seekers from Sri Lanka since 1986. This representation to the Inquiry into Asylum Applications is based on our casework for our clients.

REASONS FOR THE RISE IN ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN THE UK

  Asylum applications in the UK by Tamils from Sri Lanka have continuously risen since 1983. 2002 saw the first drop in applications by Tamils of 42% compared to 2001. These changing application rates can be directly related to the civil conflict occurring in Sri Lanka since 1983. The drop in applications in 2002 was the direct result of a cease-fire agreement between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Additionally, some Tamil asylum seekers now feel safe enough to return to Sri Lanka voluntarily. For example, Mr Sivaruban arrived in the UK in May 1998, and has been awaiting the appeal against his refused asylum application in June 2003. However, as a result of the cease-fire Mr Sivaruban feels it is safe to return to Sri Lanka and will return to Colombo on 19 May 2003. Thus for our clients the reason for the rise in asylum applications in the UK was the continuing need for safety from conflict and persecution in Sri Lanka. As the conflict is resolved, we expect asylum application numbers to drop.

  In our view, a further reason for the continuing rise in asylum applications is the failure of the UK and other western governments to facilitate broader international participation in refugee protection. For example, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand are not signatories to the Geneva Convention for Refugees, and therefore Tamils cannot enter these countries to avoid persecution. Additionally, there are no formal asylum procedures in India, and therefore Sri Lankan Tamils who were temporarily housed in refugee camps in Tamil Nadu were forcibly removed when the ADMK was elected to the state government. The UK government should consider providing material assistance to Sri Lanka's neighbours in order to encourage them to provide temporary protection for Tamils. This would prevent the need for Tamils to travel to the UK to seek asylum.

  A third reason for the continuous rise in applications is the continued sale of arms to warring parties by European asylum-providing countries, despite cease-fire agreements. For example, it has emerged that since the cease-fire was agreed, the LTTE has been sold military equipment by Denmark, itself an asylum-providing country (17 March 2003, The Lanka Academic 3, 345). Until the UK Government collaborates to prevent the sale of arms in such circumstances, we expect the number of asylum applications due to continued conflict to rise.

  Fourthly, in the last 10 years changes in border and immigration controls have meant that previous avenues for legal temporary residence in the UK (such as student and employment visas) are no longer easily available. Following the Immigration and Appeal Act 1996, a visitor from Sri Lanka may not change his status by obtaining an employment or student visa once in the UK. Instead, in order to avoid returning to an area of political unrest, he is forced to apply for asylum. For example, Mr Ramasamy came to the UK in May 1999 on a valid visit visa. When his application to extend his stay as a dependent of family members was refused, this elderly man applied for asylum in the UK. His case was finally allowed by the adjudicator on human rights grounds in April 2003. Had Mr Ramasamy been allowed to continue his stay as a family dependent there would have been no need for him to apply for asylum. Thus if the UK government were more flexible with regard to other forms of temporary admission to the UK, many asylum applications would be unnecessary.

ADEQUACY AND FAIRNESS OF MANAGEMENT OF ASYLUM APPLICATIONS

  According to Home Office statistics for the third quarter of 2002, 92% of initial asylum applications by Sri Lankan Tamils were refused. In the same period, the adjudicators allowed 18% of appeals by Tamils. This indicates that the Home Office is not fairly treating the initial applications of asylum seekers.

  We have several examples of specific unfairness in the management of asylum applications. In the case of Mr Sutharsan, our client was detained at Dover in preparation for removal because it was stated that his asylum claim had been refused and there were no outstanding appeals procedures. However, neither our client nor ourselves had received the refusal letter and appeal papers, and the Home Office was unable to show that these documents had been posted to us. Following our appeal, the adjudicator allowed the applicant's asylum appeal to proceed further to a full hearing (appeal number HX/05119/2003). This is but one of several examples of the Home Office's accusation that applicants have failed to follow correct procedure when either our clients have followed the procedure (such as timely return of forms), or the Home Office has failed to follow its own procedures, and hence appeal rights have been illegally denied.

  In a second case, Ms Kalaichelvi was refused asylum after two interviews at which no legal representation was present. Ms Karaichelvi was detained at Oakington Detention Centre immediately after her arrival in the UK on 19 March 2003. Her brothers approached us and we agreed to represent the client. However, despite repeated attempts to arrange to interview our client we were prevented from doing so by Group 4. The Home Office also refused our request to change the interview date in order to ensure she had been legally advised. After the asylum refusal our client was released, and we are now appealing against her refusal. The case demonstrates the unfair management of asylum applications in that legal representation was unavailable to our client. The fact that our client was released after refusal demonstrates that she is not felt to be a threat to the community. We believe that such detentions occur largely to ensure that applicants do not have adequate access to legal representation.

  Such cases not only cause our clients unacceptable distress, but result in additional delay and court procedures at considerable cost to the British government.

BACKLOG OF ASYLUM APPLICATIONS

  In our experience a backlog of asylum cases accumulated since 1993 because of a huge reduction in the number of our clients given Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) on compassionate grounds. Prior to 1993, most Tamil asylum seekers received ELR, and therefore did not appeal against the asylum application. Since 1993, without the temporary security offered by ELR, our clients have appealed against failed asylum applications, which has led to a backlog of unresolved applications.

  However, since September 2001 the government has taken action to reduce this backlog, at the expense of quality decisions. As a result appeals to the Appellant Authority have accumulated, a high number of which are allowed by the adjudicators and the higher courts. The backlog has not therefore been cleared, but has been shifted to the Appellant Authority.

ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT PROVIDED TO ASYLUM SEEKERS BY THE NATIONAL ASYLUM SUPPORT SERVICE (NASS)

  Support provision by NASS is not running smoothly. Our clients continue to face considerable difficulties in receiving subsistence-only support. In some cases, Post Office staff have not received the necessary documentation to provide our clients with their support, but are unable to explain why. At the same time, our clients have not received an explanation from NASS regarding the cessation of support. If a person's benefits are to be stopped, the applicant should be informed in advance of the cessation.

  We find it very difficult to assist our clients with these issues. NASS telephone lines are frequently engaged, and our letters to NASS often go unanswered. We have also encountered NASS's unwillingness to co-operate to sort out simple discrepancies. In one case, our client's benefits were suddenly withdrawn, as NASS stated that he had exhausted his appeal rights. The NASS officer refused to accept that this was a case of mistaken identity, and that the client in question was not the one for whom appeal rights were exhausted. It took our representation to an appeal hearing for this matter to be resolved, and the clients benefits to be reinstated.

  Only two working days are allowed to make appeals to NASS against their decisions to refuse support. We feel strongly that this is an insufficient period within which to lodge an appeal. For example, Ms Sebastiampillai's benefits were stopped because the Home Office stated that there were no outstanding appeals. However, the law states that support may be provided until a removal order has been served. Ms Sebastiampillai's appeal is still under consideration, and on this basis we appealed for continued support. Our appeal to NASS was delayed because we needed to clarify the status of our client's asylum appeal. After several weeks the Immigration Authority had not replied to our request for information, so we appealed to the Home Office. The Home Office asked why we had not submitted the appeal within two days. Over two months after writing to the Immigration Authority we have still not received information regarding the status of our client's asylum appeal, and the Home Office will not consider the appeal against the cessation of support until we provide this information.

  A third case demonstrates the problems faced by some applicants who arrived in the UK before 1997. Mr Ratnasingam Tharmalingam first applied for asylum in 1994. His appeal against refusal of his fresh application will be heard in June 2003. In the intervening period, our client worked legally and has bought a house. However, he recently lost his job, and is now unable to claim support from any agency. NASS will not support him because his original application was submitted prior to 1997. The local council, which would otherwise support pre-1997 applicants, need not support him because he is a house-owner and is therefore not destitute. And he is not entitled to social security benefits because he is "subject to immigration control". He is therefore trapped without support until his house is repossessed by the bank, and he and his family become destitute.

DETENTION OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS

  In our experience, detention of asylum applicants is used inappropriately. If the person is to be detained, he should be informed of the reasons for detention. The applicant's legal representative or immediate relative should be informed in the event of detention. Access to legal advice should be provided within 48 hours. In our experience, there is no systematic adherence to any of these standards. Unfortunately, at present there is no legal requirement in immigration matters for these practices, in contrast to the requirements for the detention of suspected criminals.

  We have several examples of clients who have been detained for inappropriate or inaccurate reasons. For example, our client Mr Kanapathipillai was arrested at his home on 28 March 2003 and detained in Dover. His asylum appeal is outstanding, and is due to be heard in July 2003. At the time of arrest he was not told why he was detained. When the applicant was informed that he was being held because his removal was imminent, we immediately sent details of the outstanding appeal. Mr Kanapathipillai was eventually released on 28 April. There remains no clear reason for his month-long detention. This is only the most recent case of inappropriate detention amongst our clients. On average, one or two clients are inappropriately detained each month.

EFFECTS OF CHANGES MADE IN NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 2002 AND THE PRIME MINISTER'S PLEDGE TO HALVE THE NUMBER ASYLUM SEEKERS BY SEPTEMBER 2003

  As a result of the High Court's order regarding the limitations placed on those who are eligible for NASS support following the 2002 Act, the Home Office has been unable to implement these changes to support. Therefore we have not noticed any effect on the management of asylum applications as a result of these changes.

  Since the Prime Minister made his pledge, we have not seen any change in the management of asylum applications. As far as we are aware, no system has been implemented in order to reduce the number of applications. There is a huge gap between the Prime Minister's statement and the existing law, and Home Office regulations.

Mr V Jana

Advisory Worker

19 May 2003



 
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