ASYLUM
SEEKERS
Behind
the headlines
REVISED
AND UPDATED 2003
Compiled
by the office of Mrs Eryl McNally MEP
Research
by Fiona Goble
Foreword
by Mrs Eryl McNally MEP
Fiona
and I have learned that although there are major problems of co-ordination
amongst agencies that deal with asylum seekers, the alarmist tone currently
being adopted is very inappropriate.
We
should never forget that in our world, terror, wrongful imprisonment and torture
are still a reality, and that economic migration is a feature of the past
history of most British families.
I
look forward to your comments on the report and hope you will appreciate this
attempt to inject reality into an issue that is not always treated objectively.
Eryl
McNally
Member
of the European Parliament, East of England region
Contents
Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom
Criticisms of the current and proposed systems
Asylum seekers in the East of England region
The Yarl's Wood Removal Centre
The Oakington Immigration Centre
Asylum in the individual Member States
European Union asylum harmonisation
Towards a truly common asylum system
Asylum
seekers in the United Kingdom
Numbers
In
2002, there were 85,865 asylum applications to the UK – up 18% on the previous
year. In the first three months of 2003, there was a dramatic 32% decrease in
applications over the previous quarter. In the second three-month period of
2003, numbers fell again – this time by 34%. These changes reflect the closure
of the Sangatte refugee camp in Calais (December 2002) and increased border
controls there, an extended visa regime requiring nationals from a growing
number of countries to have a visa before travelling to the UK, and other
changes to UK asylum policy.
In
2002, the UK had more applications for asylum than any other country in Europe
in terms of numbers (until recently, Germany topped this list). However, in
terms of the number of asylum seekers in relation to its population, the UK
ranked only 10th in Europe and 8th in the European Union,
with most of the smaller countries of Europe receiving proportionally more
asylum claims.
Nationalities
Forty-three
per cent of those seeking asylum in the UK in 2002 came from Iraq (17%),
Zimbabwe (13%), Afghanistan (9%), Somalia (9%) China (8%) – all of them
countries well known for their political volatility and/or poor human rights
record. Other countries of origin of substantial numbers of asylum seekers
include Sri Lanka, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Age
and sex
In
2002, about three-quarters of asylum seekers were male and 82% were between the
ages of 18 and 34.
Decisions
In
2002, 42% of asylum seekers were granted refugee status (10%) or exceptional
leave to remain (32%).This varies widely between countries with asylum seekers
from Poland having virtually no chance of a positive decision and those from
Iraq having a 75% chance at the initial stage.
Removal
of failed asylum seekers
Estimates
suggest that the Home Office loses touch with thousands of failed asylum seekers
each year and that only a quarter to a third of failed seekers are removed.
During
2002, a record 10,740 failed asylum seekers were removed (13,910 if dependants
are included) or returned voluntarily. This is still only about 25% of those who
are refused asylum.
There
are two main reasons why the removal rate is low.
Firstly,
most countries do not want to take back failed asylum seekers mainly because
their economies may benefit from the revenue asylum seekers may send back to
their country of origin. (Now
that asylum seekers are no longer permitted to work at any time, this may
change). Removal orders can be difficult or impossible to enforce. This may be
because the failed asylum seeker has no papers and the embassy does not accept
that the asylum seeker comes from its country. In other cases, it may be because
the organisation of the country’s national government is such that effective
removal procedures are impossible to organise.
Secondly,
most refused asylum seekers lodge an appeal against the decision to remove them.
During this time, they are free to stay at an agreed address and required to
report to a police station or immigration officer at regular intervals. This
system appears to be inadequately resourced. For a variety of reasons, a
significant number of asylum seekers do not abide by the conditions and cannot
easily be traced. The new asylum procedures aim to remove failed asylum seekers
from countries that the Home Office deem ‘safe’ after the initial negative
decision and for these people to conduct any appeal from their country of
origin. Also, the government is planning to build more Removal Centres where
failed asylum seekers will have to stay before being deported to their country
of origin.
How
much does it cost?
It
has been estimated that in 2002 the government spent about £1.7bn on the asylum
system, including processing claims and direct support for asylum seekers (BBC,
2003). This amounts to well under 0.5% of total managed public expenditure of
approximately £400bn. Set against this expenditure, it must be noted that the
Home Office has estimated that people born outside the UK, including refugees
and asylum seekers, put 10% more into the Treasury
coffers than they take out (report by the Refugee Council, 2002).
Refugees
According
to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), there are an
estimated 169,354 refugees living in Britain (2001). Refugees are people who
have been given this special status by the country in which they sought asylum.
The number of refugees in Britain represents less than 2% of the total world
population of refugees. They have UN travel documents and the same basic rights
to travel freely and access services as other UK citizens. For these reasons,
their precise numbers are not recorded or known. The UK does not feature at all
in the UNHCR top nine countries of major resettlement of refugees, unlike six
other European countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands and
Ireland); nor does it feature among the major refugee hosting countries, most of
which are the countries neighbouring the world’s worst trouble spots, most of
them poor countries with serious problems of their own. For example, far more
people from Afghanistan went to neighbouring Pakistan and Iran than to any
country in the West and most people fleeing Burundi went to neighbouring
Tanzania and DRC.
The
issue of illegal workers
Estimates
of illegal workers in the UK (people who have entered the country but have not
sought asylum) are usually put at between 500,000 and 1 million. A 2003
government report admitted to “several hundreds of thousands”. Illegal
workers are largely employed in the UK’s unregulated economy, particularly in
catering, construction, clothes manufacturing, agriculture and the sex industry.
As well as possibly encouraging people trafficking and smuggling, there are
concerns that the high level of illegal workers is driving down wages in
low-skilled jobs and, in some cases, increasing racial tensions because
low-skilled British workers feel threatened.
The
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, 2002 includes provisions to reduce
illegal working. The measures include increased requirements for employers and
increased fines for those employing illegal workers. In addition, all asylum
seekers are now issued with a ‘smart’ card (for more details, see page 6)
and no asylum seekers are allowed to work. (Before the 2002 act, asylum seekers
who had been awaiting a decision for over six months were permitted to work).
The
current government discussion on identity cards, which would be issued to all
citizens, is also designed to combat, among other things, the issue of illegal
working. In July 2003 the government’s Illegal Working Steering Group
published a consultation document, and the group is due to start considering
opinions in October 2003. (Identity cards are currently used in 12 of the 15 EU
states).
Asylum
seekers and the issue of criminality
It
is accepted that asylum seekers may be victims of crime and injustice, including
racism, and that it is not currently possible for asylum seekers, however strong
their case, to enter the country legally.
However,
there are also other links between some asylum seekers and crime.
-
Some people who enter the country illegally come in the hope of getting work in the unregulated economy, and only claim asylum when they are discovered. Others may overstay on a visitor’s visa, give false information in order to gain permission to enter the UK, or are in possession of false documents and only claim asylum once their misdemeanours have been discovered.
-
Some groups of asylum seekers come from societies where there are high levels of violent crime and, in some cases, a tradition of blood feuds. Some come to claim asylum in the UK and other European countries to escape this culture and victimisation. But there is also evidence that some people enter the UK illegally in order to exploit it.
-
Some individuals who come to the UK to seek asylum or to work in the unregulated economy have involvement with people smugglers or people traffickers.
Note:
There is a difference between people smugglers and people traffickers. ‘People
smugglers’ are individuals or groups with a ready supply of people who already
want to enter another country. People smugglers usually also smuggle other
goods. ‘People traffickers’ are individuals or groups who delude people into
a system of illegal working and who themselves profit from the illegal work.
Who
can be granted asylum?
Asylum
seekers are granted residency in Britain if they meet the 1951 UN Convention’s
definition of a refugee. To do this, they must have a "well-founded fear of
persecution" on the grounds of "race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
If
these conditions are not quite met but the Home Office still believes that the
asylum seeker would face danger if returned to their country of origin, the
person could, until recently, be granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’
(ELR). This means they could remain in the UK, usually for a period of four
years. After this, they can apply for leave to remain permanently and, more
often than not, this was granted. In April 2003 ELR was replaced by Humanitarian
Protection (HP) which the Home Office stated would be used ‘more sparingly’
than ELR. HP is granted for a period of up to three years. After that time, the
case will be reviewed. If the circumstances are found to still exist then either
an extension will be granted to bring the period of HP up to three years or if
they have already had three years HP, the individual concerned can apply for
Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). In addition to HP, there is a category
called Discretionary Leave (DL) which will be awarded to people who have been
refused refugee status but who do not fulfil the criteria for HP. It will only
be awarded in very limited circumstances. DL will be granted for up to three
years and will be reviewed at the end of that period. At that point it can be
extended for a further three years. After six years on DL an application can be
made for ILR.
In
addition to replacing ELR, the UK now no longer gives routine permission to
remain to individuals from specified countries with recognised serious problems,
as was the case until recently for asylum seekers from Liberia, Libya and
Somalia. Instead, all cases will be considered individually. This amendment has
alarmed refugee and asylum seeker support groups which claim that war-ravaged
countries such as Somalia, with no recognised government, could never be
considered safe.
How
do people claim asylum?
An
asylum application can be made to an immigration officer at a port of entry (a
sea port or airport), at a police station or at the Home Office. In 2002, 68% of
asylum seekers made their claim ‘in country’ – as opposed to at a port of
entry, most of them after entering the country on a student or visitor’s visa.
The UK is now also taking part in a UN system which means it will take a certain
number of certified refugees through a planned programme.
What
happens to people who claim asylum?
The
asylum process in the UK is currently in the process of being changed in line
with the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act,
2002. The changes aim to streamline the asylum process, deter asylum seekers
with unfounded claims from coming to the UK, and allow the Home Office to be
better informed on the whereabouts of asylum seekers during the asylum process.
Induction
Centres, Accommodation Centres and Removal Centres
The
new system will focus on Induction Centres, Accommodation Centres and Removal
Centres. On claiming asylum, applicants will be sent to an Induction Centre
where they will have their rights and responsibilities explained to them and
where they will undergo basic health screening and other checks. Most of the
centres will be located near points of entry into the UK such as ports. A pilot
Induction Centre has been operating in Dover for some time but the plan to
expand the number of centres has run into problems.
Once
they have left the Induction Centre, many asylum seekers in need of support will
go to an Accommodation Centre housing up to 750 residents where most services,
including legal advice and health care, will be provided on site. (Although the
first trial Accommodation Centre, in Bicester, was given planning permission in
August 2003, it is unlikely to be open before the end of 2004 and there may be a
further appeal against it from concerned local residents). Residents at the
centres will be free to come and go except at night. Alternatively, asylum
seekers may be sent to a flat or house provided by the National Asylum Support
Service (NASS), a division of the
Home Office, as is currently the case. Asylum seekers do not have a choice over
where they are sent. All the areas with NASS accommodation are outside London
and the South East and the chief reason for dispersing people is to relieve
these areas of some of the responsibility and expense of meeting asylum
seekers’ needs.
Asylum
seekers whose claims are considered very likely to be refused may be taken to
the Oakington Immigration Centre in Cambridgeshire where their application is
‘fast-tracked’. (For more information
on the Oakington Immigration Centre, see page 16). The likelihood of refusal
is largely assessed on the basis of their country of origin.
Some
asylum seekers may be detained because the Home Office does not believe they
will maintain voluntary contact and will probably ‘disappear’. At 28th
December 2002, 795 asylum seekers were detained – 14% of them in prison. The
remainder were either at the Oakington Immigration Centre (5%), a Removal Centre
(81%) or at an immigration short-term holding facility (1%).
Smart
identity cards
All
asylum seekers who have made their claim since autumn 2002 have been issued with
a ‘smart’ identity card known as an ARC which includes the holder’s photo,
fingerprint and details of his or her age and nationality. They also include
details of the progress of their case, accessible only to Home Office officials.
The cards were introduced to replace the standard letter from the Home Office,
which was easy to forge. They are used as proof of the asylum seeker’s status
and to enable them to access certain services such as health care.
Financial
support for asylum seekers
Asylum
seekers are provided with an allowance equivalent to about 70% of the value of
basic income support. The amount is currently £38.26 (from April 2003) for a
single person aged 25 or older. However, one of the major impacts of the 2002
bill has been to deny from January 2003 (with certain exceptions for
particularly vulnerable groups) this basic level of support to those who do not
claim asylum ‘as soon as reasonably practical’ which is usually accepted as
meaning at a port of entry into the country. The rule aims to discourage people
from claiming asylum only once they are ‘discovered’ or found to have
overstayed on a student or visitor’s visa, as opposed to making their claim as
soon as they reach the country. Refugee support groups claim that the rule is
grossly unfair because many asylum seekers do not make their claim at a port of
entry because they are too traumatised or, because of experiences in their own
country, they are scared of officials and official procedures. About 65% of this
group of asylum seekers are granted asylum but, while waiting for a decision,
the UK government will, they claim, be condemning this vulnerable group of
people to homelessness, hunger and begging.
In
January 2003, the government was challenged in a human rights case over the
situation of a destitute Somali asylum seeker. The government were found to be
in breach of the European Human Rights Convention. This was upheld by a court of
appeal ruling in March 2003 and later admitted by the government as having been
unfair. More recently, in September 2003, the government was found not to
be in breach of the convention in the case of another asylum seeker who was
seeking refuge in Heathrow Airport, and who had both shelter and some money for
food. It seems that the government has a duty to support those ‘at risk of
severe suffering’ but does not have a duty to support in-country applicants
just because they claim to be destitute. Critics argue that the new rules
governing support are at best unclear and at worst both unjust and unfair.
No
permission to work
Before
July 2002, asylum seekers were allowed to work six months after they first
claimed asylum, if their case was still being processed. This
is no longer the case. The government has added this new regulation
because it believes that the opportunity of employment made the UK seem more
attractive to asylum seekers with unfounded claims and added that, in any case,
most asylum cases are decided within six months. (Between April-December 2002,
85% of initial decisions were made within six months, according to Home Office
Statistics).
How
are asylum decisions made?
Initial
decisions are made on the basis of an interview with Home Office staff, a
Statement of Evidence Form (detailing the applicant’s reasons for seeking
asylum) which is 19 pages long and has to be completed in English, and Home
Office knowledge of the asylum seeker’s country of origin. If asylum seekers
fail to attend an interview or fail to return the form by the deadline, they
could be refused asylum or even taken into detention. In 2002, 2,795 asylum
seekers had their request for asylum rejected on grounds of non-compliance. This
means that the asylum seeker either failed to complete the form as requested,
failed to complete it on time or failed to attend an interview.
How
long does it take?
Initial
decisions took an average of six months during the financial year 2002-03. This
is down from an average of nine months for the previous year (Beverley Hughes,
answer to parliamentary question). About 85% of cases were determined within six
months of application between April 2002 and December 2002 (Home Office
statistics). For those detained at the Oakington Immigration Centre (asylum
seekers who are believed unlikely to be successful) the time is usually 7-10
days. Under the last Tory government, the average wait for an initial decision
on an asylum request was 20 months.
How
can asylum seekers appeal over a decision?
The
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act made several changes to the appeals
process.
Firstly
and perhaps most importantly, appeals against negative asylum decisions for
asylum seekers from 24 countries deemed by the government to be safe now have to
be conducted
from outside the UK. (When the list was introduced it consisted of the 10
countries set to join the EU in 2004. The government reserved the right to add
countries to the list which it has since done). In legal jargon, these appeals
are known as ‘non-suspensive appeals’. Refugee and asylum seeker support
groups claim that this system could lead to miscarriages of justice. It is
wrong, they argue, to treat cases on a country basis rather than an individual
one. There are, they continue, well-documented cases of certain groups, such as
Roma, being persecuted in certain Eastern European countries which the UK
government considers safe.
In
previous years, about a quarter of negative decisions are overturned on appeal
but many asylum seekers who are deported to their country of origin will,
critics argue, have virtually no hope of making an appeal, either because of an
unjust legal system or a lack of infrastructure in their home country.
The
new act also denies automatic bail hearings to asylum seekers who want to appeal
against a negative initial decision. Detention centres have been officially
renamed ‘removal centres’ and more people will be given the power to detain
asylum seekers and grant or refuse bail. It is not known when this part of the
act will come into force and critics argue that it may contravene the European
Convention of Human Rights.
The
Home Office announced in August 2002 that it plans a fast-track deportation
process for failed asylum seekers that will remove them from the UK within 8
days. This ruling will affect an estimated 300 failed asylum seekers a month,
mostly those in the Oakington Immigration Centre. Critics claim that this will
not give the failed asylum seekers time to conduct a safe and satisfactory
appeal.
In
addition, most asylum seekers who want to appeal will no longer have the right
to a judicial review at the High Court, where many negative decisions have been
overturned. They will now only be entitled to a statutory review which will take
place before a single high court judge and relate
only to matters of law, rather than matters of fact. Asylum support groups are
worried that asylum seekers are being denied access to this part of the legal
system, particularly as there are no simultaneous plans to improve the standards
of operation of the Independent Appeals Tribunal or to increase its status.
Criticisms of the current and proposed systems
The
UK’s policy on asylum seekers has been heavily criticised both by those who
see it as too lenient (eg, some members of the Tory opposition, much of the
local and national press and many members of the public) and those who generally
believe that while the system has improved in some ways under the current
government, it is at least potentially unfair and inhumane, and possibly racist
(eg refugee and human rights organisations).
There
has been general agreement on all sides that in the past the system has been
inefficient. This was partly a result of the backlog of well over 100,000 cases
in early 2000, caused by rising numbers of asylum seekers, an ill-timed move of
the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate’s headquarters,
and the failure of a new computerised administration system for asylum
applications. It was also a result of the low level of removal of failed asylum
seekers and the admission by Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) that the Home
Office had lost contact with thousands of failed asylum seekers.
Some
of the main criticisms of the current system are as follows:
Decision
processes
-
Junior officials make initial decisions on asylum seekers’ claims at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Home Office. These officials may not always be adequately trained and, in a small number of cases, may even be racist.
-
Initial decisions depend heavily on Home Office information on the countries from which the asylum seekers originate. These are called ‘country assessments’. This information is sometimes inaccurate or misleading and can mean that asylum seekers are rejected on the basis of where they come from, without adequate consideration being given to their personal circumstances. Critics would like an independent unit to be responsible for country assessments.
-
The bureaucracy of the system is unfair to asylum seekers who may not understand what the system requires of them, may not speak good English, may not have adequate access to translators, may be exhausted and traumatised on arrival in the UK, and may not have access to good quality legal advice.
-
Some of those advocating on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees are accused of hampering fair decision-making procedures by being ‘too naïve’.
-
Too many asylum seekers are detained and the process for deciding who should be detained is sometimes arbitrary. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Amnesty International, Liberty and the Refugee Council all argue that it is wrong to detain people who have not committed a crime. From February 2002, no asylum seeker who does not have a criminal conviction may be detained in prison, though the government is pressing ahead to house an increased number of ‘failed’ asylum seekers in Removal Centres.
Treatment
of asylum seekers
-
A report published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) in February 2002 described the National Asylum Support Service as ‘shambolic’. A later report published in October 2003 claimed that the service remained ‘in the grip of chaos’ and that asylum seekers may be left destitute for weeks or even months. NACAB believes that the service should be decentralised to provide more responsive facilities at local level and also called for a ‘value for money’ audit to be prepared by the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission.
-
A report published jointly by Oxfam and the Refugee Council in July 2002 found that 85% of asylum seekers and refugees sometimes or often experienced hunger and 80% were unable to maintain good health.
-
A report published by the BMA (British Medical Association) in October 2002 concluded that asylum seekers’ health frequently gets worse after coming to the UK. This is caused by several factors including the lack of basic health testing, poor understanding of the needs of those suffering from psychological trauma or depression, and the lack of additional resources for those areas receiving large numbers of asylum seekers.
-
The system of dispersing asylum seekers to cluster areas (which are not generally used to large numbers of immigrants) means that they often have inadequate access to appropriate legal advice and community support.
-
Cluster areas are often areas that are not used to hosting immigrant communities and are therefore more likely to be racist. Racist incidents against asylum seekers appear to be growing. In October 2001 alone, asylum seekers reported 112 incidents of racial harassment by the local community to the National Asylum Support Service.
-
Cluster areas are often areas that are already home to underprivileged communities. Housing large numbers of asylum seekers within these communities can put additional burdens on overstretched local services (eg, health and education) and may, in some cases, exacerbate social conflict.
-
The accommodation that asylum seekers are sent to may be sub-standard.
-
Housing asylum seekers in Accommodation Centres will make them feel isolated and, for those whose claim is granted, will make them less able to integrate with the host community. It is particularly unfair to deny access to mainstream schools to asylum seekers’ children. Critics of the centres also claim that they are too large and in the wrong place – they should be smaller and located in cities or large towns rather than rural areas.
-
The level of benefits for asylum seekers is too low (approximately 70% of income support).
Politicians
and the government
-
The government is too concerned with appearing ‘tough’ and reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK, without adequately considering the circumstances from which some asylum seekers are fleeing.
-
The government and the opposition sometimes seem to be vying with each other over who can be the toughest on asylum seekers.
-
Neither the government nor its advisers have an adequate understanding of the motivation of asylum seekers or illegal workers so any measures taken to deter them are not likely to be effective. Making conditions relatively unpleasant and difficult will not deter either genuine asylum seekers or those who have come in search of a better life as both groups will be reasonably hopeful that their situation will improve after a relatively short time.
-
The system for dealing with asylum seekers, including the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), is inadequately resourced.
-
Private contractors are responsible for providing a large amount of accommodation for asylum seekers through the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). There is evidence that cost cutting among some of the companies has resulted in substandard accommodation.
-
There is insufficient communication and joint planning between senior civil servants in the main government departments that come into contact with asylum seekers and illegal workers. (The Home Office is currently addressing this issue).
-
The Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act have many laudable aims but can hamper the investigation of some people suspected of false asylum claims.
-
Some politicians have helped to promote the attitude that most asylum seekers are not genuine and, explicitly or implicitly, are a threat to security, economic stability and social peace.
-
The frequent change in asylum and immigration policies (four Acts in the last 12 years) has contributed to a negative attitude towards asylum seekers.
Public and media attitudes
-
A MORI survey in 2000 reported that 80% of the public believed that Britain was a ‘soft touch’ for asylum seekers and that two-thirds believed there were too many immigrants. However, a more recent survey commissioned by the Refugee Council (June 2002) found that the British public was four times more likely to be positive than negative towards asylum seekers arriving in their community.
-
A Council of Europe survey of prejudice across Europe published in April 2001 found that racism against asylum seekers was "particularly acute" in Britain. In March 2001, the European Union’s racism and xenophobia monitoring centre reported that of all 15 Member States, Britain was the most hostile to political refugees.
-
The UK national and local press has been criticised for "consistent inflammatory attacks" on asylum seekers and migrants (Council of Europe, April 2001).
Education
of children
The
government has also been criticised by asylum seeker support groups for
proposing to educate children in accommodation centres rather than the
mainstream education system, which is the current practice for all children
except those in the Oakington Immigration Centre. The government states that
education and health services will be located in the trial accommodation centres
in order to relieve pressure on local services. It allows, however, for those
whose needs cannot be met on site to attend local schools. Some people working
with asylum seekers believe, however, that it would actually be better to
educate children within special facilities because it would be less traumatic
for children of failed asylum seekers to be removed from a specialist education
system than from a mainstream
school. The plan to educate children in accommodation centres was defeated in
the House of Lords in October 2002.
Asylum
seekers in the East of England region
The
East of England region (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire,
Norfolk and Suffolk) contains two of the country’s ‘cluster areas’ for
NASS accommodation – Peterborough and Ipswich. These are areas where asylum
seekers are sent under the government’s dispersal programme in order to
relieve some of the responsibility of London and the South (for more information
on this, see the section Asylum seekers in
the UK).
Note:
Cambridge, Norwich and Great Yarmouth were also proposed as cluster areas.
However, accommodation in Cambridge and Norwich was too expensive. In Great
Yarmouth, the local business community strongly objected to asylum seekers being
dispersed to holiday accommodation on the basis that it deprived the town of
tourist revenue.
There
are also two major centres for asylum seekers in the region:
-
Yarl’s Wood Removal Centre in Bedfordshire that detains failed asylum seekers prior to their removal from the country (currently closed because of serious fire damage – see page 15 for more information).
-
Oakington Immigration Centre in Cambridgeshire that detains asylum seekers whose cases are deemed unlikely to be successful, and processes their claims through a fast track procedure (see page 16 for more information).
Local
authorities are given a grant from central government to cover the main costs of
supporting asylum seekers. The grant is designed to cover accommodation and the
costs of employing extra support staff but does not include provision for
additional education, health and social services. The grant varies according to
the age and status of the asylum seeker.
An
eye on the future
None
of the planned pilot Accommodation Centres for asylum seekers are to be built in
the East of England, but there are
plans to build a Removal Centre in Uttlesford, Essex (north of Stansted).
Originally it was intended to be a 50 to 60-place centre for people who were to
be deported within a day or two. Plans have since been revised and current
proposals are for a 700-place centre for people in the final stages of appeal
(ie, the same sort of centre as the Yarl’s Wood Removal Centre).
It
is very difficult to assess the number of asylum seekers in the region. This is
partly because of the poor quality of records kept on asylum seekers who came to
the UK before 1999.
The
number of asylum seekers in the East of England region who receive support
through the National Asylum Support Service scheme (NASS) is approximately 3,000
although officials agree that there is a ‘trickle back’ factor to London and
the South.
The
East of England Consortium for Asylum Seeker Support estimates that there are
approximately 10,000 asylum seekers in the region.
There
is no clear evidence that the number of people seeking asylum in the East of
England is dropping. However, throughout the country as a whole there have been
significant inroads into the backlog of asylum cases. This means that most local
authorities have seen a decline in the number of asylum seekers for whom they
are responsible.
The
East of England Consortium for Asylum Seeker Support
The
East of England, like other regions in the UK, has a Consortium for Asylum
Seeker Support. It was set up in March 2000 and is based at the Local Government
Conference of the Regional Local Government Organisation in Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk.
The
main purpose of the Consortium is to support the government’s National Asylum
Support Service (NASS), to represent the interests of the 54 local authorities
in the region, and to co-ordinate the efforts to support asylum seekers by other
statutory agencies such as the police and the NHS, voluntary organisations,
private sector organisations (mostly accommodation providers), and asylum
seekers and refugees themselves. The Consortium is funded by the Home Office and
works chiefly through a number of partnerships.
Bedfordshire
Numbers and nationalities
Most
asylum seekers supported by Bedfordshire County Council live in Bedford because
of access to accommodation, support and education services.
In
April 2002, the Council supported approximately 300 asylum seekers, including,
according to latest figures, 55 families and 17 unaccompanied minors aged 14-17
years. The county also hosts approximately the same number of asylum seekers
from two London boroughs. The London boroughs cover the costs of accommodation
for these asylum seekers but the county is responsible for education, health and
social service requirements.
Before
many returned to their country of origin, the largest groups of asylum seekers
in Bedfordshire were Kosovars and Serbs. There are also some Kurds and Iraqis.
Support
The
Asylum Team based within Social Services has the main responsibility for meeting
the needs of asylum seekers. There are also a number of voluntary groups that
help, including BRASS (Bedford Refugee and Asylum Support), the Citizens
Advice Bureau, Council for Racial Equality and voluntary housing support groups.
Two colleges provide free English, computing and other courses.
Asylum
seekers have access to legal advisers and there are four local solicitors who
provide advice and represent asylum seekers.
Main
concerns
The
growing number of asylum seekers has placed considerable strain on educational
services, for which the government provides no additional funding. The county
has had to find innovative ways of responding to support the admission,
induction and integration of asylum seekers. Much of this work has been carried
out by the county’s Minorities Achievement Support Services.
There
have been press reports that some of the accommodation provided by private
landlords is squalid.
The
authorities are finding it hard to cope with the high costs of providing
interpreters.
Cambridgeshire
Numbers
and nationalities
Cambridge
was officially a ‘cluster area’ but because of the high cost of
accommodation, asylum seekers have not been dispersed here. The County Council
is currently supporting 168 adults and dependent children and 21 unaccompanied
minors. Fifty-five of these are accommodated in Peterborough. There are 26
nationalities represented among the asylum seekers. The largest group supported
is Kosovan (23%) and there are also considerable numbers from the former Soviet
republics, as well as from Iran and
Afghanistan.
Hertfordshire
Numbers
and nationalities
Outside
of NASS, Hertfordshire County Council currently has responsibility for 687
asylum seekers. The difficulty in finding suitable accommodation has meant that
nearly half have been accommodated outside the county, usually in London.
Main
concerns
The
County Council’s main concern is that it is paid insufficient money to support
the asylum seekers, which will mean an extra burden on local taxpayers for what
the Council believes is essentially a national issue. While the numbers have
begun to fall, the decline has been mostly among single asylum seekers rather
than families and it is families that are particularly difficult to support
within the grant limit given by the government. The Council is currently under
pressure to move asylum seekers to cheaper accommodation where possible and to
put tight controls on subsistence support for asylum seekers outside the NASS
scheme.
Luton
Numbers
and nationalities
There
has been a considerable growth of asylum seekers in Luton over the past two or
three years. Just a couple of years ago, the borough accommodated only 40 asylum
seekers. In 2001, it housed and supported an estimated 400 of its own asylum
seekers (before the introduction of NASS and the dispersal system) plus 100
asylum seekers sent from two London Boroughs. In 2001, an estimated 20 new
asylum seekers were arriving in Luton every week and it is likely that the
figure is still around this level.
The
asylum seekers in Luton come from over 20 countries.
Support
Luton
Borough Council has responsibility for housing and providing subsistence to
asylum seekers who arrived in the area before the NASS system was established.
Asylum
seekers are housed in private accommodation, including hostel or bed &
breakfast accommodation.
A
well-established team set up originally to provide services for travellers and
homeless people provides health care.
Children
are in mainstream education and adults and over-16s are entitled to free English
and computer courses at a local college. Luton has a Law Centre which helps
asylum seekers and a large number of specialist immigration solicitors.
Main
concerns
As
with other areas, there are financial and staffing implications of housing and
meeting the needs of a growing number of asylum seekers because the government
does not pay for education and health services.
Peterborough
Peterborough
is the only local authority in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire or Hertfordshire
that has a contract with NASS. (Ipswich is the only other place in the East of
England to have the same type of contract).
Numbers
and nationalities
City
officials estimate that there are 6,000 asylum seekers in the district (February
2003), although official estimates are much smaller.
Seven
other local authorities are housing their asylum seekers in Peterborough and
some people feel that asylum seekers have been ‘dumped’ in the city. Local
authorities housing asylum seekers in Peterborough include Lincoln, Cambridge
and Cambridgeshire, Stevenage and some of the London boroughs.
There
is also a growing Portuguese community in the city and evidence that they are
being employed by gangmasters to work as fruit and vegetable pickers or in the
construction industry. Although European Union (EU) nationals such as the
Portuguese have a right to work in any other EU state, they are still suffering
racist attacks.
The
nationalities of the main groups of asylum seekers in the area changes, but
includes significant numbers from the former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and
Afghanistan. There are also Algerians and Moroccans and an increasing number of
sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of
Congo and Zimbabwe.
Main
concerns
Many
people feel that Peterborough cannot cope with its existing asylum seekers, let
alone the increasing number of asylum seekers coming to the area under the NASS
scheme, because the government is not providing the necessary support. There
have also been reports that doctors have closed their waiting lists which means
that asylum seekers cannot access appropriate health care. There are now plans
to open a new health centre catering especially for asylum seekers.
There
is evidence of an increasing amount of racist abuse of asylum seekers in
Peterborough, including those housed in the Tyesdale flats in Bretton who claim
that offenders regularly break in to steal items and terrorise the occupants. On
Saturday 20th April 2002 there was an attempted murder and arson
attack and the victim suffered a punctured lung. One family has suffered 27
incidents in the past year alone. Many asylum seekers and refugees believe that
the police and local authority are not supporting them, and there is a fear
among some support workers that asylum seekers may soon take matters into their
own hands. There is also a feeling that anti-asylum seeker sentiments are being
‘whipped up’ by some irresponsible local politicians.
The Yarl's Wood Removal Centre
The
Yarl’s Wood Removal Centre is situated just outside Bedford in the North East
Bedfordshire constituency. It was built as Europe’s largest detention centre
and was capable of housing 900 detainees (including single women and families
with children) and included health care, recreational and religious facilities.
It accepted its first detainees in November 2001.
The
original intention of the centre was to hold failed asylum seekers for a very
short period (24 hours or so according to a radio interview with Lord Rooker on
30th October 2001), prior to their removal from the country.
According to the campaign group ‘Stop Arbitrary Detentions at Yarl’s
Wood’, on the night of the fire only 11.9% of detainees were subject to a
removal action and the average length of detention for people at the centre was
about four months. The campaign group and others believe that detaining people
who have not committed a crime is unjust, isolating, makes it hard for asylum
seekers to get good quality legal advice, and can cause physical and
psychological suffering.
In
February 2002, following an incident involving the handcuffing of a 55-year-old
woman seeking medical attention, there was a riot and the centre was set alight.
The buildings were not protected by a sprinkler system.
The
damage to the centre was estimated at about £38 million. According to news
reports, 37 people escaped during the riots, all but 12 of whom were recaptured.
Nine of these are believed to have remained in the country but the whereabouts
of the remaining three are not known. In August 2003, two male residents were
found guilty of violent disorder and jailed for four years. They will be
deported to their countries of origin on their release. Two others admitted
violent offences earlier and received shorter sentences. Three others were
cleared of any charges and deported. No one was found guilty of arson.
At
the beginning of April 2002, the centre’s activities were suspended because
insurers refused to provide cover. The centre reopened in September 2003 when it
accepted 60 single women. The government plans to build up this number slowly.
The centre now has sprinklers and all staff have to undergo fire training.
The
centre continues to be run by a Group 4 company which holds a contract to run
the centre until 2006, even though the company was branded a "laughing
stock" in court, and the judge said the firm was ill equipped to deal with
the violence.
The
Oakington Immigration Centre is based in a converted former Ministry of Defence
barracks in Longstanton, south of Cambridge. The Centre was opened in March 2000
to help cope with the backlog of undecided asylum applications. It is a ‘fast
track’ centre and designed to process claims which the authorities believed to
be unfounded. This assessment is based largely on an asylum seeker’s country
of origin, although there are some exceptions within 11 of the countries on
grounds of religion, ethnic group, regional origin or political affiliation.
People detained at Oakington come from 34 East European, Asian and African
countries. In 2002, the top five nationalities were Chinese (14%), Zimbabwean
(10%), Turkish (10%), Indian (10%) and Czech
(8%). The centre has facilities for 400 people, housed in simple dormitories or
family rooms. People are not allowed to leave the Centre during their stay and
medical and education services are provided on site. Costs per resident are
estimated at approximately £2,700 per week.
The
centre aims to make initial asylum decisions within 7-10 days and 90-95% of
cases are decided within this time limit.
In
2002, 8,360 asylum seekers came to Oakington, down 8% on the 2001 figure.
Initial decisions were taken on 7,775 (93%), while 475 cases were taken out of
the fast track system and 50 cases were withdrawn.
Approximately
99% of the cases heard were initially refused asylum. 1% received refugee status
and less than 1% were granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR). Of those
refused, 94% lodged an appeal. About 11% of cases were granted a right to stay
following the appeal while 86% were dismissed and 4% withdrawn.
Legal
challenge to detention at Oakington
In
2001, Four Iraqi Kurds launched a judicial review to challenge the
government’s action in detaining them at Oakington, claiming it was against
their human rights (Article 5 of the Human Rights Law which prevents arbitrary
detention). A High Court judge agreed (September 2001) that the government had
acted unlawfully. This could have meant the release of hundreds of refugees from
Oakington and could have opened the way to millions of pounds worth of claims by
former asylum seekers. The High Court decision was overturned by the Appeal
Court (October 2001) which claimed that detaining people for very short periods
and depriving them of their right to liberty "falls at the bottom end of
the scale of interference with that right" and that it had to be seen in
the light of needing to deal with approximately 7,000 applications for asylum a
month. However Master of the Rolls Lord Phillips warned that "most
right-thinking people would find it objectionable that such persons should be
detained for a period of any significant length of time while their applications
are considered, unless there is a risk of their absconding or committing other
misbehaviour". (Cambridge News,
19th October 2001) The Home Office believed this was a victory for
common sense. The Kurds’ lawyers maintain that detention was an administrative
convenience and infringed the rights of vulnerable people. At the end of October
2002, UK law lords unanimously agreed that it was legal for the Home Office to
hold asylum seekers in a fast-track detention centre such as Oakington.
People
traffickers and Oakington
There
are fears that people traffickers, particularly those trafficking people from
China, are making use of Oakington. A spokesperson for the Refugee Legal Centre
claims that Oakington’s high refusal rate plays into the hands of traffickers.
The spokesperson added that some deals are worked out before people leave their
country of origin, or that agents contact people once they are in Dover or
Oakington. Asylum seekers pay agents in their own country before they leave.
They know they will probably be taken to Oakington and will need legal help
during their stay. Instead of using the legal services at the Centre, their
agent’s UK representative contacts them and arranges accommodation for them
while they appeal against their asylum refusal. The representative also arranges
a job in the unregulated economy such as a garment sweatshop or the sex
industry. The asylum seeker then ‘disappears’. The Office of the Immigration
Services Commission (OISC), which is an independent body set up under the 1999
Immigration and Asylum Act, is currently investigating this issue.
In
2002, 378,524 asylum seekers lodged applications for asylum in the 15 European
Union countries, a very slight reduction in numbers since 2001.
Figures
for the individual countries are shown in the table below.
ASYLUM
APPLICATIONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, 2002
|
Member
State |
No.
of asylum applications 2002 |
%
change 2001/2002 |
|
Austria |
37,074 |
+23% |
|
Belgium |
18,805 |
-23.4% |
|
Denmark |
5,947 |
-52.5% |
|
Finland |
3,443 |
+108.5% |
|
France |
50,798 |
+7.4% |
|
Germany |
71,127 |
-19.4% |
|
Greece |
5,664 |
+3% |
|
Ireland |
11,634 |
+12.7% |
|
Italy |
7,281 |
-24.3% |
|
Luxembourg |
1,043 |
+52% |
|
Netherlands |
18,667 |
-42.7% |
|
Portugal |
245 |
+4.7% |
|
Spain |
6,179 |
-34.9% |
|
Sweden |
33,016 |
+40.4% |
|
United
Kingdom |
110,700 |
+20.3% |
Source:
UNHCR, 2003
The
countries receiving the most applications per capita in 2002 were, in order,
Austria, Sweden and Ireland.
During
2002 and 2003, EU countries have continued a general trend of making themselves
less attractive to would-be asylum seekers. They have used a number of measures
to do this, including reducing welfare provision. Countries that have passed
measures recently include Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK. Non-EU
states Norway and Switzerland have also introduced more anti-asylum measures. In
part, Europe’s increasingly restrictive policies are a response by mainstream
political parties to the electoral success of anti-immigration politicians.
Anti-immigration politicians have had considerable electoral success in France,
the Netherlands and Sweden, Austria and Denmark.
In
recent months, many countries have also been trying to improve the integration
of those granted asylum and of foreign workers by requiring all immigrants to
take language and culture classes. While there is some obvious merit in this,
there is also a suggestion that the requirements are being used to deter asylum
seekers. This is because, in many cases, people have to pay for all or part of
the course themselves. In some cases, severe penalties are imposed on people who
do not participate.
The
European Union is currently taking measures to harmonise its asylum procedures (for
more information, see page25). At the moment, however, there are still
differences in the treatment asylum seekers can expect in the different Member
States.
Asylum
in the individual Member States
This
section contains information on the number and nationality of asylum seekers in
the different Member States and the sort of treatment they can expect.
Austria
The
government provides care for asylum seekers who are considered destitute –
usually around a third of all asylum seekers. These people are entitled to
accommodation in private hostels or state-run centres and receive a monthly
allowance. Asylum seekers lose this allowance if they are absent from their
accommodation for more than three consecutive days. Asylum seekers who are
supported under the government scheme may be employed in auxiliary activities
directly connected with their accommodation (eg, cleaning and maintenance) but
are not otherwise allowed to work.
In
October 2002 Austria announced that immigrants from ‘safe countries’ would
no longer be given room and board while waiting for their appeals. In January,
the government evicted hundreds of asylum seekers from state housing. These
people then had to choose between free travel home and trying to find a place of
emergency shelter. This policy has led to a sharp drop in the number of
asylum seekers in Austria.
From
January 2003, immigrants who arrived in Austria after 1998 have been required to take German
language courses. They have to pay half the cost of the courses themselves.
People who don’t take the course within four years will lose their rights to
welfare benefits and perhaps residency permits.
The
coalition government, which included the anti-immigration Freedom Party of Joerg
Haider, collapsed in autumn 2002. In the November 2002 election, the senior
party in the coalition – the People’s Party – increased its vote
considerably. The Freedom party won only 10% of the vote – down from 27% in
the previous election of 1999. Joerg Haider resigned as leader.
Belgium
Belgium
traditionally has more asylum seekers per 1,000 of its population than any other
EU country. In the past, asylum seekers received a one-off allowance and a
weekly allowance for food and clothing. In 2002, the law changed and asylum
seekers no longer receive any cash support. The new law has been the main reason
why the number of people claiming asylum in the country has halved over the past
year or so.
In
autumn 2002, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Torture criticised
Belgium’s harsh deportation methods for failed asylum seekers.
Denmark
In
recent years, Denmark has accepted about half of asylum seekers permitted to
make a claim. However over the past few years, Danish asylum laws have become
increasingly restrictive. The centre-right coalition that came to power in
November 2001 introduced new anti-asylum seeker laws, including one that reduces
welfare provision for asylum seekers and one which forbids marriages between
under-24s and ‘foreigners’ settled in Denmark. This is the first time there
has been such a law in Europe since Nuremberg – strange for a country with a
strong liberal tradition that was the first to sign the UN Refugee Convention of
1951.
Asylum
seekers in Denmark usually live in accommodation centres while their claims are
being processed, unless they are given permission to live with family or
friends. They are not permitted to work.
If
asylum claims are considered ‘manifestly unfounded’ on the basis of their
country of origin, the authorities pass the applications to the Danish Refugee
Council (DRC). If the DRC supports the initial negative decision, the applicant
is denied the opportunity to appeal. Since 1995, Danish law has permitted the
authorities to detain asylum seekers whose applications are (or expected to be)
‘manifestly unfounded’.
Since
1998 Danish authorities have had the legal authority
to deprive asylum seekers of their monthly allowance if they refuse to
co-operate with the authorities that are trying to establish their identity and
travel routes. Rejected asylum seekers who refuse to leave the country may get
similar treatment.
Continuing
its increasingly restrictive policy on immigrants and asylum seekers, in July
2002 Denmark introduced a law to reduce public assistance to refugees during
their first seven years in Denmark. The government also announced that
immigrants would have to wait for seven years (rather than the current three
years) before obtaining a residence permit, and that all immigrants will be
required to learn the Danish language and Danish culture. As a result of these
and previous anti-immigration policies, asylum applications in Denmark fell by
over 52% between 2001 and 2002. However, over this period, asylum applications
rose dramatically in the other Scandinavian states.
Finland
In
June 2000, Finland amended its Aliens Act to accelerate the process of deciding
asylum claims and speed up the removal of unsuccessful applicants. One of the
main reasons for this was to reduce the number of claims from Roma asylum
seekers from Eastern Europe. The amendment seems to have had the desired effect.
Asylum seekers whose claims are fast-tracked (those who come from a ‘safe
country’ or a ‘safe third country’) may be removed even if they have
lodged an appeal.
After
claiming asylum, most asylum seekers live in reception centres managed by the
national or local government or the Red Cross. Asylum seekers have to attend
language classes in reception centres or may lose their social benefits. Asylum
seekers who have lived in the country for more than three months have limited
permission to work.
The
number of asylum applications in Finland, especially from Roma people, is
increasing, although it is still relatively small. Asylum applications in
Finland seem to cause fewer negative feelings than in most other European
countries. However, the asylum system is tightly controlled. In July 2002,
Finland opened a detention centre for asylum seekers whose country of origin is
uncertain. Prior to this centre, this group of people were kept in police
detention.
France
To
qualify for a temporary residence permit (and therefore some sort of allowance
and a right to accommodation) asylum seekers have to make an appointment with
the local authorities for which there is a four-month waiting list. This is a
great discouragement to asylum seekers who do not have friends or relatives in
the country.
French
reception centres are very overcrowded. Many asylum seekers have to struggle
alone and often end up in accommodation for the homeless.
During
the May 2002 general election, the National Front anti-immigration candidate,
Jean-Marie Le Pen, received 17% of votes in the first round. Although Chirac
easily won the next round, le Pen’s general success has helped shape the
increasingly tough immigration policies of the newly elected government. In
September 2002, Chirac announced ambitious changes to the country’s asylum
policies. These included reducing processing times to one month (at the time the
processing time averaged 18 months) and increasing the removal rate of
unsuccessful asylum applicants. These changes will come into effect in 2004. The
government has also announced job training and French language classes for
successful asylum applicants.
Since
the closure of the Sangatte refugee camp in November 2002, and the rising number
of police patrols on asylum seekers in the area, there have been a number of
reports of asylum seekers entering the UK on ferries from Cherbourg where
security is less tight. There have also been reports that approximately 40
asylum seekers a day continue to arrive in Calais.
Germany
Until
recently, Germany had the reputation for the toughest policy on asylum seekers
of all Member States, although both Belgium and Denmark have now introduced more
stringent controls.
In
Germany, all asylum seekers are placed in reception centres for up to three
months before being housed elsewhere. The monthly allowance has been reduced
with all other assistance given in kind. Reception centres offer little in the
way of counselling and school is not compulsory. It is rare for children to be
taught in their mother tongue or to have extra German lessons.
Most
Member States eventually grant some sort of status to around half of all asylum
seekers but in Germany this figure is only around 10-15%. Unlike the UK, Germany
does not give asylum to victims of non-state persecution.
Germany
holds the record for the highest number of deportations of asylum seekers and
for the longest time asylum seekers spend in deportation prisons.
In
2002, the German government narrowly passed a new Immigration Bill. The Bill
contained proposals for an accelerated asylum procedure for applicants deemed
not to have a valid claim. It also included proposals for an increase in the
number of removal centres for failed asylum seekers and for a reduction in the
age below which children had a right to join their parents. Most
controversially, it contained provisions to allow for up to 50,000 skilled
immigrants to enter the country each year, to help meet Germany’s skills
shortage.
The
Immigration Bill was to have been introduced in January 2003 but was rejected on
a point of procedure. The bill was re-introduced into the legislative procedure
in January 2003 but finally rejected by the upper house in June 2003.
Greece
Greece,
with its long southern coastline and a border with Turkey, is the first European
Union country many asylum seekers reach, although many see it as a gateway to
other Member States rather than a place to stay.
Only
one of Greece’s four reception centres is fully funded by the government –
the rest are largely supported by voluntary organisations and other agencies,
including the European Commission. The European Commission funds a short-term
subsistence grant for asylum seekers in Greece.
There
is evidence that most of the asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in Greece
want to go to the UK, France, Germany or Scandinavia. There is also evidence
that the relatively small number of asylum seekers who are given refugee status
in Greece usually leave shortly afterwards for other European countries.
The
Greek government has recently introduced laws which impose heavy fines and a
three-month prison sentence on companies that employ foreigners without
authorisation. Greece also imposes the heaviest penalties in the EU on people
traffickers.
In
June 2002, Greece passed a law that made it illegal to detain asylum seekers for
more than three months but due to the availability of services in Athens, it is
not possible to process all cases during this time.
In
June 2002, the government announced that it plans to construct blockades along
the border with Turkey – a route currently used by many asylum seekers
entering the EU.
Greece’s
treatment of asylum seekers continues to be criticised by asylum and refugee
support groups. In the past few months, the authorities have been criticised for
preventing doctors from visiting one of their immigration camps. They have also
been condemned for poor treatment of Roma people – both their own Roma
communities and others. It has also been reported that Greece’s crackdown on
people trafficking, which involves deporting hundreds of Eastern European women
and girls, does nothing to protect the victims.
Ireland
Ireland
operates a dispersal system for asylum seekers because of a shortage of
accommodation in and around Dublin. After a two-week stay in a reception centre,
asylum seekers are now dispersed to bed & breakfast accommodation, a
guesthouse or a holiday village. Dispersed asylum seekers receive meals and a
weekly welfare payment. There have been some serious incidents of racist abuse
in the towns receiving asylum seekers. Ireland has suffered a backlog in asylum
decisions and has recently allocated additional resources to speed up the asylum
process.
In
December 2002, Ireland reintroduced its Immigration Bill 2000 into parliament.
The new bill, still going through parliament, included some late amendments
clearly designed to deter asylum seekers. These included the concept of ‘safe
countries’, increased burden of proof requirements, a tighter time limit for
asylum seekers lodging an appeal and an increase in the time asylum seekers can
be detained before being deported.
Some
people in Ireland have expressed concern that the UK’s increasingly
restrictive asylum system will increase the number of asylum seekers in Ireland.
Ireland
has also taken steps to increase its low level of deportations of failed asylum
seekers and launched a police crackdown in July 2002.
Italy
Italy’s
long coastline is a popular landing point for merchant ships sailing from Asia
(including Pakistan and Sri Lanka) and North Africa. Most Eastern Europeans
cross the border from Slovenia or come in speedboats across the Adriatic from
Albania.
The
laws governing asylum seekers in Italy allow the authorities to reject asylum
seekers at the border if there is evidence that they have spent longer in a
‘safe third country’ than would be necessary for transit purposes.
Asylum
seekers are given only 45 days assistance even though it can often take over a
year for a decision on their case to be made. This means that many asylum
seekers go without government assistance for long periods of time. In addition,
asylum seekers in Italy have no right to health care except in emergencies.
Luxembourg
Asylum
seekers in Luxembourg usually live in reception centres or hostels. Most are
entitled to free clothes and language classes. They also receive a basic monthly
allowance. Children may attend school and all asylum seekers are entitled to
free health care. They are not generally allowed to work, although this rule has
been relaxed in the case of asylum seekers from the former Yugoslavia.
The
Netherlands
The
Netherlands used to be relatively generous in its treatment of asylum seekers
but has recently introduced much tougher measures.
All
asylum seekers in the Netherlands are sent to a reception centre for the first
three months, before going to residential centres, hotels or boarding houses.
They are given a one-off allowance, weekly pocket money and a clothing
allowance. If food is not provided where they are staying they also receive a
food allowance. Asylum seekers are offered a general medical check on arrival.
School is compulsory for 5-16 year olds but asylum seekers are not entitled to
further education. Asylum seekers are allowed to work for 12 weeks a year.
In
May 2002, the late Pim Fortuyn’s anti-immigration List Party won 1.6m of the
11m votes cast in the Netherlands general election. The party joined a
centre-right coalition, which established an immigration ministry but the
government collapsed after only 87 days and the List Party disintegrated.
However, the List Party seems to have retained an influence as asylum policy has
become increasingly restrictive. In April 2003, The Human Rights Watch Group
criticised Dutch asylum policy, particularly the 48-hour accelerated procedure
for those deemed to have come from ‘safe’ countries, the treatment of asylum
seeker children and the low level of welfare support. It called on the new
coalition government (made up of Christian Democrats, Liberals and Progressive
Liberals) to take action to take steps to reverse the process but this is
exceedingly unlikely.
Portugal
Portuguese
authorities can reject asylum claims from applicants arriving through ‘safe
third countries’.
Portugal
implemented a new immigration law in July 2002. The law sets new limits on
people from non-EU countries who want to work in Portugal. The previous law
allowed people to apply for temporary work and a residence permit once in
Portugal. This is no longer the case. In addition, those found employing
undocumented non-EU workers will face higher fines and will have to cover the
costs of deportation. The law was brought in partly as a result of the increased
number of foreign workers entering Portugal to work on the buildings for the
Euro 2004 football tournament.
Spain
In
addition to asylum seekers, many foreigners seek residency rights in Spain. They
are drawn by the jobs available in the Spanish countryside, including the
south’s poly-tunnels where substantial amounts of Europe’s fruit and
vegetables are grown, and on the country’s growing number of building sites.
Many Spanish employers seem willing to employ non-EU workers (mostly from
Morocco and Sub-Saharan Africa) on low wages with no social security.
Many
of the immigrants come as tourists while others cross illegally in dangerous
night-time trips from Morocco. There are large camps of would-be asylum seekers
in Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish enclaves in Morocco, where conditions are said
to be desperately overcrowded and squalid.
They
generally avoid being sent home and after 40 days in detention must be released.
Some seek asylum, but most admit they have come for a better life and eventually
find some sort of work.
In
Spain’s Canary Islands, almost 1,600 people were caught arriving by sea on the
islands of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote in the first three months of 2002 –
about twice the number that were caught in the same period the previous year.
Spain
has been criticised by other EU states for not having stricter controls on its
southern coast. The EU has now funded a new coastal radar system based on
Israeli early warning systems designed to prevent armed Palestinians from making
beach landings.
Spain
has recently made it more difficult for Argentineans, Ecuadorians and Dominicans
to enter Spain.
The
government is now using a quota system to plug gaps in its own labour force. It
will only accept workers arriving from their
countries of origin and from countries with which Spain has a bilateral
agreement. (In the past, applications for the quota often came from undocumented
foreigners already living in Spain).
In
September 2002, the Spanish Prime Minister made a speech blaming immigrants for
a significant proportion of crime in Spain and promised to crack down on
migrants.
In
November 2002, Spain announced plans to build detention centres across the
country. This was, in part, a response to the considerable numbers of asylum
seekers, particularly those from Morocco, landing in the Canary Islands. Many of
these people were detained in the former airport in Puerta Ventura, Tenerife,
where conditions were reported to be overcrowded and unsanitary.
Sweden
Sweden
puts asylum seekers from ‘safe
third countries’ or ‘safe countries of origin’ through an accelerated
procedure. It also deems applicants from countries that have historically low
approval rates as ‘manifestly unfounded’.
About
half of all asylum seekers live in government-funded housing while waiting for
their claims to be processed and the other half live with relatives or friends.
The government grants monthly allowances to applicants without other means of
support. Asylum seekers whose applications are expected to take more than four
months may receive work permits.
In
the September 2002 elections, the Social Democrats won 40% of the vote and
retained control of the coalition government. However, the Liberal Party, which
called for immigrants unable to find work in Sweden within three months to be
expelled, did surprisingly well in a country that has a strong humanitarian
tradition.
From
January to October 2002, asylum applications in Sweden increased by 45%. This
was largely a result of increasingly restrictive asylum laws in both Denmark and
Norway. In December 2002, Sweden dropped its controversial plans to accommodate
asylum seekers in offshore floating structures. The plan was estimated to cost
ten times as much as housing asylum seekers in flats, which is the current
practice.
European
Union asylum harmonisation
Background
Member
States of the EU have sought to harmonise their asylum and immigration policies
for the past 15 years but the process only gathered momentum in the late 1990s.
In 1999 the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force which stipulated that over the
next five years the European Council would need to take decisions on the
following:
-
The criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted by a national of a non-member country in one of the Member States
-
Minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States
-
Minimum standards with respect to the qualification of nationals of non-member countries as refugees
-
Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status.
In
October 1999, the EU Heads of State held a special summit in Tampere, Finland to
provide political backing for the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The
Tampere Council agreed that in the longer term, Community rules should lead to a
common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those who are granted asylum
which would be valid throughout all Member States.
Prior
to the Amsterdam Treaty, EU Member States adopted two binding agreements – the
Dublin Convention and the Schengen Convention – which had considerable
influence on Member States’ approach to asylum issues.
The
Dublin Convention, which came into force in September 1997, contained measures
for deciding which Member State was responsible for processing asylum claims.
Generally, the Convention held that the asylum claim should be processed in the
first Member State the asylum seeker reached.
The
idea behind the Dublin Convention was to prevent people from moving between
Member States in their search for asylum, to make sure that all Member States
took their fair share of responsibility for processing asylum claims, and to
ensure that Member States had a responsibility towards each other, particularly
in relation to the strength of their border controls.
From
an asylum seeker’s point of view, the Convention seemed unfair. Member States
currently have different rules on who can be granted asylum, so the country
where a claim is made can have a strong influence on whether or not a claim is
successful. Another criticism of the Dublin Convention was that it did not stop
the problem of asylum seekers whose claims had failed in one Member State from
making a claim in another. This was because the Convention allowed Member States
to return asylum seekers to ‘safe third countries’ outside the EU, without
examining their claims. Asylum seekers returned in this way were then likely to
make a claim in another Member State.
There
were also practical problems and considerable time and expense involved in
trying to prove asylum seekers’ travel routes, convincing countries they had
travelled through (‘transit’ countries) to readmit them, and transporting
asylum seekers to another Member State. Critics stated that the Dublin
Convention did not even serve one of its primary purposes which was to spread
the costs of processing asylum claims more fairly. This is because most asylum
seekers arrive in an EU country by land or sea, so are most likely to have
entered at the EU’s southern and eastern borders which include some of the
poorer EU countries with some of the least effective administration systems.
The
Schengen Convention was introduced in March 1985 to a sub-group of EU Member
States - Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It was later
adopted into the Amsterdam Treaty of the European Union and signed by all Member
States apart from Ireland and the UK, but including non-Member States Norway and
Iceland. Its main purpose was to enable citizens of Member States to move around
freely by relaxing border controls between the countries. It affected asylum
seekers because, in order to relax internal border controls there was general
agreement that the countries on the frontiers of Europe (eg, Germany, Austria,
Italy, Spain and Greece) should strengthen their border controls with non-EU
members in order to prevent unauthorized people from entering EU territory. The
Convention also established a system of common visas and data exchange on asylum
seekers and other foreigners.
Where
are we now?
At
the Tampere Summit (October 1999) it was agreed that a common European asylum
system should be established by a two-stage process. In the short term, Member
States should establish minimum standards on the main aspects of the asylum
procedure as outlined in the Amsterdam Treaty. This would be followed in the
longer term by a truly common asylum procedure.
We
are still in the short-term stage of the process. This following section
describes the EU directives that are currently in progress.
Regulation
on criteria and mechanisms for determining the
State responsible for
examining asylum requests
This
regulation is designed to replace the Dublin Convention and adapt the system to
the mainland area of the EU which, following the Schengen Convention, no longer
has strong internal borders. It has the same central principle as the Dublin
Convention – that the responsibility for processing a claim for asylum lies
with the first Member State the individual reaches.
In
addition, the directive aims to increase co-operation between Member States, to
speed up the processing of asylum claims, to keep family groups together, and to
give longer and more realistic deadlines for transferring asylum seekers between
Member States when this is deemed necessary. Under the proposal, the first state
of entry would continue to be responsible for asylum seekers remaining on its
territory for more than two months.
In
February 2003, the EU governments agreed new rules to determine which country
should process a particular asylum claim. The rules are designed to reduce
‘asylum shopping’. This is the process whereby asylum seekers rejected in
one Member State then make a claim in another Member State. The rules also aim
to encourage countries to maintain tight border control. Under the new
agreement, which came into force in July 2003, if an asylum seeker has been in
the EU for less than 12 months, the country through which he or she first
entered should process the claim. In cases where it is not clear where a person
first entered, the state where he or she has lived for the last five months will
assume responsibility. The time limit is a compromise. Italy and Greece (both
countries through which many asylum seekers enter the EU) wanted entry countries
to be responsible for no more than six months. The UK wanted a figure of 18
months and Belgium 24 months.
Criticisms
The
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) believes that the legislation is
unfair to Member States and to asylum seekers. ECRE states that the proposed
system will be just as unworkable as the Dublin Convention for the same reason
– that responsibility for the asylum application lies with the Member State
that the asylum seeker first reaches, which will usually be those states on the frontiers of the EU.
ECRE
also claims that the system will be very expensive to administer. The Commission
acknowledges that transferring an asylum seeker to another Member State is
generally costlier and more time consuming than processing the claim in the
first instance, or processing the claim through an accelerated procedure.
Minimum
standards of reception conditions for asylum seekers
(The
Reception Directive)
This
directive covers the assistance given to asylum seekers and their families, and
their legal position. Its aim is to provide a decent standard of living for
asylum seekers and to help limit the movement of asylum seekers within the EU
– the phenomenon sometimes known as ‘asylum shopping’. This directive is
closely related to the Procedures Directive (see
page 28) and they overlap on the issue of detaining asylum seekers.
On
25th April 2002, EU Justice and Interior Ministers agreed on broad
standards for the treatment and accommodation of asylum seekers who are waiting
for their claims to be processed. The minimum standards allow Member States to
accommodate asylum seekers at border points in "accommodation centres that
guarantee an adequate standard of
living" or in private homes or hotels. Member States may also ban
asylum seekers from taking jobs while their claims are being processed.
Originally the time limit on the ban from work was a year but the European
Parliament reduced this to four months.
In
addition, the minimum standards will mean that asylum seekers will have to be
informed of their obligations and benefits within two weeks of lodging their
application and must receive identity papers certifying them as asylum seekers
within three days. The European Parliament added an amendment to the directive
which means that Member States cannot give asylum seekers vouchers instead of
money.
Families
will be allowed to stay together "as far as possible" and children
will be given the same education as nationals, even if this takes place in an
accommodation centre. Education must begin within 21 working days of the
acceptance of the family’s claim for asylum.
In
November 2002, the Council of the Union reached agreement on
this directive and it is awaiting final signature.
According
to the various protocols relating to the position of the UK, Ireland and
Denmark, the UK opted to participate in the directive while Denmark and Ireland
did not. The directive will not therefore bind Denmark and Ireland.
Criticisms
The
main criticisms of the directive are:
-
The driving force behind the directive appears to be to deter asylum seekers rather than provide them with a dignified standard of living while their claims are being processed.
-
It may set a ‘lowest common denominator’ for services. (However, the European Parliament has agreed that the legislation cannot be used to reduce the level of allowances given to asylum seekers).
-
The grounds for lawfully detaining asylum seekers are not clear.
-
Member States are worried that if asylum seekers are allowed to work, their countries will become more attractive to asylum seekers.
-
It appears to favour two levels of living conditions for asylum seekers, with better conditions for those whose cases are not judged ‘inadmissible’ or ‘manifestly unfounded’.
-
It does not guarantee all asylum seekers a right to appeal or a right to legal assistance.
-
It allows for so much variation in reception conditions within the minimum standards that it will have no effect on ‘asylum shopping’ – one of the processes it was meant to reduce.
Minimum
standards for qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless
persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection
(The
Qualifications Directive)
The
main points of this proposal are to set general rules, applicable in all Member
States, for determining whether a claim for international protection is valid or
not. It also sets out minimum obligations of Member States to those who are
granted refugee status or subsidiary protection (those who don’t come within
the Geneva Convention on refugees but who are deemed in need of international
protection). These obligations cover issues such as the right to accommodation,
education, work, medical care and help with integration. At the moment, Member
States are free to apply their own rules to decide which cases are ‘manifestly
unfounded’. This is usually decided on the basis of information held on the
asylum seeker’s country of origin and Member States currently decide for
themselves which countries are ‘safe’ or not.
Groups
representing asylum seekers agree that the proposed legislation is positive in
that the grounds for claiming international protection include non-state as well
as state persecution (this is currently accepted as grounds for a valid claim in
the UK, although not in all other Member States).
In
October 2002, the European Parliament adopted a report that put those in need of
subsidiary protection on a more equal footing to those seeking refugee status
under the 1951 Geneva Convention. The report states that those qualifying for
protection should include people fleeing a risk of capital punishment or genital
mutilation. It also stated that protection should be widened to include same-sex
partners and children of the applicant’s spouse or partner. The report stated
that residence permits for those in need of subsidiary protection should be
valid for at least five years and should be automatically renewable.
The
clauses that are needed to deal with terrorists and the increase in the number
of asylum seekers that this could create is still under discussion at the
Council of Ministers.
The
Council debated this directive in February 2003 and the final act is expected in
November 2003.
Criticisms
Like
the criticisms of other legislation, this directive will not affect ‘asylum
shopping’ if some Member States choose to adopt standards above the minimum.
Minimum
standards on asylum procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status
(The
Procedures Directive)
The
purpose of this directive is to establish a minimum level of obligations for
Members States processing asylum claims and a minimum level of rights for asylum
seekers regarding their claims. The aim is to ensure a fair and efficient
process of identifying those in need of protection.
The
main features of the directive are:
-
procedural guarantees for asylum applicants, including the right to information about their legal position at key moments and the right to appeal the decision
-
minimum requirements for the decision-making process, including the need for a three-tier decision-making system and the right of review, and for decision makers to have access to information, advice and training
-
common standards for the application of certain concepts and practices, such as ‘inadmissible applications’, ‘manifestly unfounded applications’, ‘safe country of origin’ and ‘safe third country’.
The
European Parliament’s amendments to the directive include improving access to
the asylum procedure, giving asylum seekers better legal and other assistance,
the right to a personal interview, limiting grounds for detention, detaining
asylum seekers separately from convicted criminals or prisoners on remand,
stricter criteria for the designation of safe countries, and reducing the
grounds on which applications for asylum are deemed manifestly unfounded. The
European Parliament also tabled an amendment that prevents states from reducing
their current level of legal protection for asylum seekers.
The
initial proposal has been considerably amended (July 2002), largely in response
to pressure from national governments. It is expected that the directive will be
debated in the Council and the final act is expected in November 2003.
The
main changes are as follows:
-
Member States may not now use separate procedures for asylum claims considered valid and claims considered inadmissible. They may, however, use an accelerated procedure for claims considered inadmissible.
-
New cases of inadmissible applications have been introduced to cover criminals convicted by an international court and people with a deportation order to a country other than their country of origin.
-
Obligations relating to reasonable time limits for processing asylum claims have been deleted from the proposed directive.
-
Proposals for a two level appeal system including at least one review of a negative decision before a court of law have been weakened, allowing Member States to have more control over the choice of appeal system.
Criticisms
-
Although the directive sounds far-reaching, it does not require Member States to apply uniform procedures and they do not have to adopt common concepts and practices if they do not want to.
-
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and other organisations representing the interests of asylum seekers are concerned about the use of accelerated procedures and the concepts of ‘manifestly unfounded applications’, ‘safe country of origin’ and ‘safe third country’ because they do not allow the examination of certain cases on a completely fair and individual basis and may also be contrary to the spirit and law of the Geneva Convention.
-
The use of accelerated procedures is not fair and may lead to bad decisions.
-
It is not fair to detain asylum seekers who have not committed a crime, and there are insufficient controls to prevent asylum seekers who have not committed a crime from being detained.
-
The appeals procedures do not appear to ensure that all appeals have a suspensive effect. (This means that asylum seekers could be detained or even returned to their country of origin before the appeal is heard).
European
Council Meeting in Seville, June 2002
Immigration
controls were top of the agenda at the June 2002 meeting of the European
Council, consisting of the leaders of each of the 15 Member States of the
European Union.
Background
The
issue of immigration has become increasingly important in Europe as politicians
have realised the extent to which the issue has been used by right-wing parties
in recent elections, including those in France, Denmark, the Netherlands and
Germany (forthcoming) − even though falling birth rates and skills
shortages indicate that some degree of controlled immigration is desirable, if
not vital, for the Member States’ economies.
At
the summit, all the Member States agreed on the need for more integration of
their immigration policies. They also agreed on some dates for the introduction
of measures already in the pipeline. By the end of the year, Dublin II, the
convention that tries to ensure that asylum claims are made in the first
‘safe’ country the asylum seeker reaches, should be in force.
By
the end of 2003, the Qualifications Directive, which aims to provide a common
policy to determine which asylum claims are valid, should be in force, as should
the Procedures Directive, which aims to set out common procedures for the
assessment of asylum claims.
The
UK, Spain, Germany, Denmark and Italy all wanted the right to impose economic
sanctions on countries that would not co-operate in accepting back failed asylum
seekers or cracking down on people smugglers. However France, Sweden, Finland
and others condemned the proposal as unfair and counter-productive. In the end,
leaders of the 15 Member States stopped short of imposing economic sanctions
such as the withdrawal of aid and opted for more "positive
incentives".
The
Member States also agreed to establish joint operations on the EU’s external
borders by the end of 2002, although not the strong border police force that
some countries wanted.
Most
organisations representing the interests of asylum seekers have criticised the
EU for concentrating on keeping asylum seekers out of Europe and creating
‘Fortress Europe’, rather than concentrating on providing a good quality,
fast and efficient decision-making process. They have also criticised the
Seville summit for agreeing a proposal to return Afghan refugees at such an
early stage of that country’s reconstruction. The governments of the EU Member
States insist, however, that their plans are to stop ‘illegal immigration’
and ‘asylum-seeking that is not genuine’ because ‘it debases the system
and harms the interests of the legal immigrant’. They add that it is also
aimed at ‘people traffickers who trade in human misery’.
Towards
a truly common asylum system
In
March 2003, the European Commission presented its Communication on the common
asylum policy and the Agenda for protection. This was in response to a document
presented by the UK government and the UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency). The
communication acknowledges the inadequacy of the current system and states that
it aims to build upon the ongoing harmonisation of existing asylum systems
within the European Union. The system, though still very much under discussion,
should be based on the following considerations:
-
the orderly and managed arrival of people in need of protection
-
the sharing of costs and responsibilities between EU Member States as well as with regions of origin
-
efficient and enforceable asylum decision-making and return procedures.
The
communication suggests that a common asylum policy could involve protected entry
procedures and resettlement schemes.
The
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) supports several elements of the
communication but has a number of concerns. These relate to "setting up a
complementary mechanism for examining certain categories of applications lodged
in or at the border of the EU". ECRE considers such a mechanism to be
unnecessary and a diversion from the Commission's purported aim to improve
national asylum procedures and establish a single asylum procedure. It also
believes that the proposal for "closed processing centres" at
particular locations could be unworkable and probably against Member States
current obligations under international and human rights laws.
Other
developments
Asylum
applications from countries joining EU to be treated as unfounded
In
October 2002, EU ministers agreed that asylum claims from the ten countries that
are set to join the EU should be treated as unfounded. The ten countries are:
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Slovakia and Slovenia.
Asylum
seekers to be fingerprinted
To
aid the return of asylum seekers to the first EU country of entry, in January
2003, the European Commission launched the European Automated Fingerprint
Identification System. The plan is that Member States will fingerprint all
asylum seekers over the age of 14. Fingerprints will then be compared. Those
asylum seekers whose fingerprints have been recorded earlier in another Member
State will be sent back to that country. Critics of the system see it as an
affront to civil liberties.
New
directive proposed
There
have been reports that the EU is planning a new directive that would grant
refugees temporary status only, making it easier for Member States to deport
refugees for a number of reasons. These could include improvements in their
country of origin, committing a minor criminal offence, or being deemed a danger
to security in their host country.
This
directive is still in the early stages but has been heavily criticised by
humanitarian and refugee organisations. They state that refugees, many of whom
have been through traumatic experiences, need security to rebuild their lives
and that the directive will destroy the chance of this.