THE KIRKHOPE COMMISSION ON ASYLUM
BUILDING A FAIR ASYLUM SYSTEM
September 2003 building a fair asylum system
2 building a fair asylum system
CONTENTS Foreword: by Timothy Kirkhope MEP 4
Executive Summary 5
Preamble 7
Twenty Recommendations 9
Overview 21
Appendix 1: Membership 23
Appendix 2: Meeting dates 25
Appendix 3: Evidence 26
3 building a fair asylum system
FOREWORD Following the publication of the Conservative Party’s interim asylum proposals in Spring 2003, I by Timothy was asked by the Shadow Home Secretary, The Rt Kirkhope MEP Hon Oliver Letwin MP, to set up and chair a small Commission to consider those policies against a wider background and, if possible, to put forward further suggestions for consideration by the Party prior to the preparation of our manifesto for the next General Election. The members of the Commission are shown in the Appendix and I should like to thank all of them for their contributions.
The Commission met on twelve occasions in London and took oral and written evidence, as well as carrying out a thorough review of the present situation and the potential action to be taken by an incoming Conservative Government.
This report attempts to provide solutions to the present asylum crisis. It is not a description of the current situation because much has already been written on this. I believe that our recommendations, if implemented, would assist in improving asylum procedures and outcomes.
I should particularly like to thank Martin Howe QC for the legal advice which he has provided to the Commission during its deliberations. I would like to thank Matthew Elliott who has acted as Special Adviser to the Commission, Catherine Gilliard my Political Assistant and researcher Lisa Vanhala. I am also grateful to those who have contributed in any other way to our work. I hope this report will form a significant part of our future asylum policy.
Timothy Kirkhope MEP, September 2003
4 building a fair asylum system
EXECUTIVE The Commission recommends the following, to create a fair asylum system: SUMMARY
Recommendation 1: The Government should publish accurate statistics on the level of migration in and out of the UK.
Recommendation 2: The Conservative Party should restate Britain’s opt-out from Schengen.
Recommendation 3: Documents should be photographed or scanned before international journeys to the UK.
Recommendation 4: People should be allowed to apply for asylum in British Embassies and Consulates.
Recommendation 5: Application Centres should be established in “safe” neighbouring countries and supported from our Overseas Aid budget.
Recommendation 6: Consideration should be given to establishing one or more off-shore Application Centres in the British Isles.
Recommendation 7: The ‘white list’ should come under the joint control of the Home Office and the Foreign Office.
Recommendation 8: Like Germany, Britain should only accept state persecution as a legitimate reason for granting asylum.
Recommendation 9: The Government should establish an Independent Application Board whose remit would be controlled by Parliament.
Recommendation 10: The application system should not involve the normal UK judicial processes or judicial reviews.
5 building a fair asylum system
Recommendation 11: The application system should not involve legal aid or appeals to the European Court.
Recommendation 12: Successful asylum applicants should initially be granted temporary asylum.
Recommendation 13: Any quota on the number of people granted asylum should be interpreted as a maximum quota, rather than a rigid quota.
Recommendation 14: The database of fingerprints of unsuccessful asylum seekers should be improved and shared with other countries.
Recommendation 15: Asylum seekers should sign a Contract of Obligations when temporary asylum is granted.
Recommendation 16: Britain should encourage further discussion and work on the introduction of Europe-wide biometric ID cards.
Recommendation 17: The Overseas Aid budget should be repatriated from the European Union, and should become a major resource in Britain’s asylum system.
Recommendation 18: Britain should not unilaterally withdraw from international Treaty obligations.
Recommendation 19: Race relations and asylum and immigration should be a combined portfolio.
Recommendation 20: The Conservative Party should continue to oppose the emerging European Union asylum policy.
6 building a fair asylum system
PREAMBLE The Commission believes that the UK should always provide a fair deal for genuine asylum seekers.
Throughout history Britain has provided a home for migrants, including those fleeing persecution in their native lands. From the Huguenots to the Kosovans, Britain has provided a refuge for those in need. Controlled migration has contributed to our society and our culture and has arguably helped us to maintain a leading role in the world.
We are mindful that we have a moral obligation, enshrined in all religions and creeds, to provide refuge and a home for asylum seekers—a diverse group of people who cannot be treated as a homogenous group. Sadly, however, in recent years Britain's asylum system has been increasingly abused. Our traditional tolerance has been tested and good race relations have come under serious threat. The complete failure of Government to put in place mechanisms for accurately assessing the numbers and categories of those entering and leaving the country means that we simply do not have the statistics which would allow us to plan properly for the needs of the country in the fields of health, education, housing and social services.
Even after due legal process, we simply have no idea of who is here and who has left. The enlargement of the European Union and the rights of free movement within Europe further complicates the situation. Even though Britain enjoys a certain amount of control over its borders through its Schengen opt-out, we have failed to take advantage of that position for the benefit of both our resident population and those asylum seekers with due
7 building a fair asylum system cause to be in the country. We therefore need to undertake a fundamental review of our asylum system in order to re-establish a fair deal for genuine asylum seekers.
Although the Commission was not asked to look at the vexed question of immigration as a whole, the line between asylum and immigration policies has become increasingly obscured in recent years. We believe that our whole immigration policy should be considered in greater detail as a matter of urgency to reflect the special priorities and requirements of the UK.
Creating a fairer system for asylum necessarily involves other countries taking their responsibility seriously too. Britain is the most densely populated country in the western world. Even the UN accepts that we take proportionately more asylum seekers than other countries. We must all play a responsible role and fairness applies not just to asylum seekers but also to the nation states.
The enlargement of Europe and the requirements for free movement will place even heavier burdens on us in future. In the meantime, however, cases such as the recent conviction of an Albanian human trafficker in the Belgium courts demonstrate the need for more urgent EU-wide action. We must cooperate with our European neighbours to convict such criminals, but this does not require European Union harmonisation. We owe it to genuine asylum seekers to penalise those who profit from their plight and to re-establish fair and transparent systems of handling applications which enjoy public confidence, both at home and abroad.
8 building a fair asylum system
TWENTY RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission recommends the following, to create a fair asylum system:
Recommendation 1: The Government should publish accurate statistics on the level of migration in and out of the UK.
The Government needs to distinguish between refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers and should know how many people are living illegally in Britain. Just as the police need proper figures on the number and type of crimes being carried out, so too must the Home Office publish accurate figures on migration.
But there is a paucity of verifiable and meaningful statistics, especially over departures from the UK. For example, the Home Office does not know how many failed asylum seekers leave of their own volition or how many persons admitted for a temporary period then overstay. Details of all non- EU/EEA nationals entering and leaving the UK should be recorded electronically. Sensible and workable internal reporting procedures should be put in place for this.
In all major areas of Government expenditure, resources are deployed and need is met on the basis of population statistics and demographic information. This is particularly so in healthcare, education and social and public services. As illegal residents are unaccounted for when budgets are set, even an error of 100,000 people can have a dramatic effect on provision. If the statistics are out
9 building a fair asylum system
by millions, which could be the case, the overall provision will be drastically inadequate and will inevitably result in hardship. Even Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has admitted that as many as five percent of London’s population is illegal; but does his strategy for the city take this into account?
In order to calculate population statistics and determine provision, we believe that Britain should re-introduce outward controls and checks at our airports and ports and consider the establishment of a new Border Police Force comprising of components from the present Immigration, Customs, Coastguard, and Police services. This should work in co-operation with any new “homeland security” organization.
Recommendation 2: The Conservative Party should restate Britain’s opt-out from Schengen.
The Labour Party has diluted our opt-out from the Schengen Agreement, but an opt-out is a necessary component of a fair asylum system. Without it we are unable to control our borders or compile meaningful statistics on the UK’s population. If we are to re-establish proper controls, there must be a clear and continuing understanding with our European neighbours that we will maintain the opt-out as a matter of principle.
Recommendation 3: Documents should be photographed or scanned before international journeys to the UK.
Travel operators of planes, boats, trains and coaches already have certain obligations under a Carriers' Liability Act to ensure proper
10 building a fair asylum system
documentation of those whom they carry. The necessary checks are not always made and whilst it is understandable that the demands for speedy travel puts pressure on the operators, technology has advanced to the point where there should be a statutory obligation to photograph or scan the documents of all persons embarking for entry to the UK. British companies should be granted special tax relief to cover expenditure on such facilities.
Recording documents would minimise the chances of passengers destroying them during or immediately after the journey, before reaching UK passport control. In addition to this, passengers should be counted on and off their means of transportation and through immigration control.
Recommendation 4: People should be allowed to apply for asylum in British Embassies and Consulates.
The current asylum system encourages people to enter the country illegally, pushing them into the hands of smugglers and traffickers, partly because it is impossible to claim asylum overseas. It is therefore important to allow genuine asylum seekers to claim asylum legally. Allowing people to apply for asylum at British Embassies and Consulates overseas, as is the current Austrian practice, could achieve this outcome. This would be a supplementary process and not a total substitute for applications in Britain.
Those deemed probable genuine cases would then be conveyed to the nearest “safe” neighbouring country (see Recommendation 5 and the Annex) from which their application would be processed. Such applications would be given preference over
11 building a fair asylum system
those made in the UK so as to encourage more overseas applications and less illegal entry.
Recommendation 5: Application Centres should be established in “safe” neighbouring countries and supported from our Overseas Aid budget.
Allowing people to apply for asylum overseas prevents unsuccessful asylum seekers from ‘going underground’ before deportation. Illegal immigrants have contributed to the growth of the black economy, which is uninsured, untaxed and unregulated.
The Commission believes that it is often in the interests of asylum seekers that their applications should be made from Application Centres in a safe location close to where they have come from. It would be less disruptive for many asylum seekers, especially families, to remain within the same broad culture and region, rather than facing a long journey to what may be a totally foreign environment. They would also avoid falling into the hands of major criminal activity in trafficking and extortion. However, large permanent refugee camps such as have been seen in the Middle East and elsewhere should be avoided.
The Commission also believes that successful asylum seekers in such safe locations should normally stay in those countries rather than coming to the UK. Subsidising a successful asylum seeker overseas is cheaper and more effective than subsidising the same person in the UK. This would, of course, have to be agreed with the safe neighbouring country when drawing up the bilateral agreement permitting the UK to have an Application Centre in that country.
12 building a fair asylum system
Recommendation 6: Consideration should be given to establishing one or more off-shore Application Centres in the British Isles.
Although more asylum applications should be dealt with close to the asylum seeker’s country of origin, a significant number of applications will still be dealt with in the UK. Some people fleeing state persecution will be unable, for various reasons, to submit an application for asylum to their nearest British Embassy or Consulate. All applications could and should be dealt with within a short period of time of no more than six weeks.
In such cases, asylum seekers would be taken to offshore Application Centres. The centres would provide a clean, safe, habitable environment but offer no prospects for economic advancement. There would be a low population density in the surrounding area. Home Office officials would be based onsite. The need for a fast turnaround would be of paramount importance in these centres.
Recommendation 7: The ‘white list’ should come under the joint control of the Home Office and the Foreign Office.
Britain currently has a so-called ‘white list’ of countries from which application for asylums are usually automatically rejected due to these countries' commitment, mostly under international conventions, to human rights and legal redress. In Britain it is currently the Foreign Office alone which determines the countries which should be on this list. We believe that the determination of this status should in future be the joint responsibility of the Foreign Office and the Home Office, thereby
13 building a fair asylum system
allowing a better scrutiny of circumstances, criminal intelligence and justice issues to take place.
Recommendation 8: Like Germany, Britain should only accept state persecution as a legitimate reason for granting asylum.
We have referred in Recommendation 7 to a 'white list' of countries to which applicants will normally be automatically returned. The list will include all EU and accession states to the European Union. Applications will only be considered from asylum seekers who claim to have been persecuted by state authorities. It is a matter for individual states to determine their internal anti-discriminatory and social legislation in accordance with international obligations and human rights. Any breach of proper standards is primarily a matter for the democratically elected institutions in those countries and should not be the basis for individual asylum claims to other countries. However, where a state does persecute individuals or groups, asylum applications should be considered.
Recommendation 9: The Government should establish an Independent Application Board whose remit would be controlled by Parliament.
An Independent Application Board should be established to deal with asylum claims, modelled on the current Canadian system. Information from the Home Office and the Foreign Office regarding the situation in countries of origin would be provided in a direct and disinterested manner and the remit of the Board would be controlled by Parliament. Decisions on applications would be reached by the Application Board following an
14 building a fair asylum system
initial assessment at the Application Centre. This system would replace the present judicial structure in relation to asylum applications. The costs of this new structure would be met from administrative and legal savings made elsewhere in the system, especially legal aid (see Recommendation 11).
Recommendation 10: The application system should not involve the normal UK judicial processes or judicial reviews.
The application system should be controlled by an Independent Application Board described in Recommendation 9. It should be a simple system involving one adjudicator and one appeal. All appeals should be heard within the Application Centres. Judicial review is not internationally available to the extent that it is in Britain, where it is almost automatically granted, so keeping applications within the remit of an Independent Application Board would also bring us into line with the international norm.
Recommendation 11: The application system should not involve legal aid or appeals to the European Court.
When asylum seekers are conveyed to their off- shore Application Centre, their cases will be assessed by the Independent Application Board as fast as possible. It is recommended that resources are allocated to ensure a maximum 'turnaround time' of 6 weeks. There will be no opportunity for judicial review as the board's decision will be final and there will be no need for legal aid. Translation and interpretation will be provided as appropriate. These cases will not at any point be permitted to “switch” into the general judicial system so appeals to the European Court will be prohibited.
15 building a fair asylum system
Recommendation 12: Successful asylum applicants should initially be granted temporary asylum.
Asylum should usually be temporary and should last only for as long as the clearly identified dangers to the individual remain. If after a period of five years the situation in the country from which the person granted asylum has not improved or the country has not been reinstated on the “white list”, people with temporary asylum should be eligible to apply for permanent asylum.
If at any time the situation which provided the basis for temporary asylum changes and the country concerned is deemed likely to remain safe for the foreseeable future, the individual will be obliged to return. Such an arrangement is also referred to in our Contract of Obligations in Recommendation 15.
Recommendation 13: Any quota on the number of people granted asylum should be interpreted as a maximum quota, rather than a rigid quota.
In any democracy there is a limit to the number of people who can be supported by resources and a limit to the size of the population. Pressures which come about as a result of large numbers of often unproductive persons create social tensions and economic challenges. The Conservative Party has proposed quotas in relation to asylum applications. Within the context of physical limits we consider such a policy is perfectly understandable and necessary. However, any quota should be a maximum. Over a period of time we will want to review any such quota, hopefully still being able to accommodate within it the numbers who have
16 building a fair asylum system
genuine cause to be granted asylum in the UK under our new arrangements.
Of course, all applications should be decided by the new proposed Independent Applications Board, not the UNHCR or Red Cross, and the quota should also include all those granted humanitarian or other temporary relief as well as those supported in safe overseas countries (see Recommendation 5).
Recommendation 14: The database of fingerprints of unsuccessful asylum seekers should be improved and shared with other countries.
A database of fingerprints for people whose asylum applications have been rejected should be established. This should be accessible by immigration staff at all points of entry and should also be shared with our international partners.
Recommendation 15: Asylum seekers should sign a Contract of Obligations when temporary asylum is granted.
In line with Article 2 of the UN Convention on Refugees we believe that all those who are successful in asylum claims in the UK should be obliged to sign a Contract of Obligations. The UK will list its commitments in the fields of housing, healthcare, education and social services and the person to whom asylum is granted will commit him or herself to abide by British law and to accept any necessary linguistic and other training necessary to find gainful employment. Non-compliance with such a contract would be an offence which could result in a review of an individual's asylum status.
17 building a fair asylum system
Recommendation 16: Britain should encourage further discussion and work on the introduction of Europe-wide biometric ID cards.
ID cards have always been a controversial area. There have been plans to introduce them at various times, including during the last Conservative Government. After wide consultation, however, the plans were dropped. We believe that the merits and demerits are now much more balanced, although we acknowledge that unless there is a Europe-wide system the benefits would still be limited.
We note the recent remarks of a Belgian judge which indicated that not only did Britain have “poor immigration laws” but its failure to have an ID card scheme and appropriate reporting methods was providing a clear attraction to illegal residency.
Recommendation 17: The Overseas Aid budget should be repatriated from the European Union, and should become a major resource in Britain’s asylum system.
There are deep concerns about the way in which the European Union overseas budget is utilised. Our remit is not to comment in detail on this but we recommend the repatriation of the UK’s contribution to that budget. We should still contribute to certain emergency aid situations but most of the resources should be redeployed and become a major resource in Britain’s asylum system.
The majority of Overseas Aid should be used to support asylum seekers and those granted asylum who are in need in the safe neighbouring countries.
18 building a fair asylum system
Investing in the infrastructure of the country, including the education, healthcare and transport system, would create jobs for both those granted asylum and national citizens, thus reducing the differential between the developing and developed world and therefore the need for economic migration.
Recommendation 18: Britain should not unilaterally withdraw from international Treaty obligations.
Britain should preferably not withdraw from international treaty obligations. Our proposals will contribute greatly to improving the asylum system and giving asylum seekers a fair deal. We think that all this can be done without departing from our international obligations. Ending the chaos in the asylum system whilst continuing to offer humanitarian relief in needy cases is a worthy goal and we should try to persuade other countries to follow the good practice which we will advocate and implement.
Recommendation 19: Race relations and asylum and immigration should be a combined portfolio.
Until the Labour Party came into Government, there was a combined ministerial portfolio for asylum and immigration and race relations. The Conservative Party’s policy has always been for a “fair but firm” immigration and asylum policy. This has produced ever improving race relations. The deterioration of race relations recently witnessed in the streets of our towns and cities and the rise of extremism fuelled by local social pressures underlines the need for a return to a combined portfolio. A fair asylum system and good race relations go hand-in-hand. The Conservative Party
19 building a fair asylum system
in Government should reinstate a combined portfolio.
Recommendation 20: The Conservative Party should continue to oppose the emerging European Union asylum policy.
Asylum is primarily a matter of national concern. Whilst there is certainly a role for international co- operation in asylum matters (such as sharing information on failed asylum seekers), the European Union should not be allowed to harmonise for harmonisation’s sake. The emerging EU asylum policy is simply another step towards a European Superstate rather than a credible response to the current situation. In this field the determinants must remain under national control.
20 building a fair asylum system
OVERVIEW The following table is an overview of how the proposed Asylum System would operate for overseas applicants and applicants in Britain.
The numbers in brackets refer to Commission recommendations. For example, (4) refers to Recommendation 4.
OVERSEAS APPLICATIONS BRITISH APPLICATIONS
A. Location X arrives at a British embassy to Y applies for asylum in the UK. claim asylum (4). Overseas Domestic applications have a applications are given priority in lower priority in the maximum the maximum quota (13). quota.
B. Country of origin Are X and Y from a white list country? (7)
. Yes: There are no grounds for asylum. They are fingerprinted and their details are recorded.
. No: Possible case for asylum.
C. State persecution Are X and Y claiming asylum on the grounds of state persecution? (8)
. No: There are no grounds for asylum. They are fingerprinted and their details are recorded.
. Yes: Possible case for asylum
21 building a fair asylum system
D. Documentation Do X and Y have documents proving their identification and nationality? (3)
. Yes: Asylum seekers with documentation are given priority in the maximum quota.
. No: Documentation is not essential, but those without documents have a lower priority in the maximum quota.
E. Independent X is conveyed to an Independent Y is conveyed to an off-shore (6) Application Centre Application Centre (9) in a safe Independent Application Centre neighbouring country (5). in the British Isles.
F. Appeals If application for asylum is rejected, the asylum seeker is allowed to appeal. If their appeal is rejected, they will be conveyed to their country of origin. (10)
G. Temporary asylum If X’s application is successful, If Y’s case is accepted, they will they will be granted temporary be granted temporary asylum in asylum (12) and they will be the UK (12) after signing a supported in the safe contract of obligation (15) neighbouring country from the obliging them, amongst other Overseas Aid Budget (17) things, to return to their country of origin if it is reinstated on the White List.
H. Permanent asylum Anybody who has temporary asylum status for more than five years will be eligible to apply for permanent asylum and to work in the UK.
22 building a fair asylum system
Appendix 1: CHAIRMAN: Timothy Kirkhope MEP CV: Conservative European Parliament spokesman, Membership Justice and Home Affairs (1999-); Conservative Party representative on the European Convention (2002-); Home Office Minister for Asylum and Immigration and Race Relations (1995-97); MP for Leeds North East (1987-97); Solicitor
Baroness Anelay CV: Conservative Home Affairs spokesman in the House of Lords (1997-98 & 2002-); Vice-President, National Union Executive Committee of the Conservative Party (1996-97); Member, NUEC (1987-97)
Annesley Abercorn CV: Parliamentary Assistant, the Hon Bernard Jenkin MP (2002-03); Deputy Chairman (Political), London West Conservative Future (2002-); Secretary, Conservative Friends of Gibraltar (2002- ); Brent East Conservative Association Executive (2002-)
Elizabeth Campbell CV: Parliamentary Researcher, Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP (2002-); Conservative parliamentary candidate, Gateshead East and Washington West (2001).
Nirj Deva MEP CV: Special Adviser for Ethnic Affairs to the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith (2001-); Conservative European Parliament spokesman, Development and Cooperation (1999-); MEP for South East England (1999-); MP for Brentford & Isleworth (1992-97)
23 building a fair asylum system
Nadine Dorries CV: Businesswoman; Advised Shadow Home Affairs Team on asylum matters
Dr Peter Gilbert CV: Research Fellow, University College London (1993-); Adviser, Cabinet Office (1987-93)
Sheila Gunn MBE CV: Camden Councillor; vice president and co- founder, Conservative Rural Action Group; Associate Director, GPC International; Political Press Spokesman, Rt Hon John Major MP (1995- 97); Senior political correspondent and columnist, The Times (1983-95)
Humfrey Malins CBE MP CV: Recorder of the Crown Court (1996-); Conservative spokesman on asylum and immigration (2001-3); Member, House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (1997-); PPS to Tim Renton as Minister of State, Home Office (1987-89); MP for Woking (1997-) and Croydon North West (1983-92); Chairman of Trustees, Immigration Advisory Service (1993-96)
Stuart Polak CV: Director, Conservative Friends of Israel (1989-); Education Director, Board of Deputies of British Jews (1984-89); Approved candidates list (1992-)
SPECIAL ADVISER: Matthew Elliott CV: Political Secretary, Timothy Kirkhope MEP (1996-97 & 2001-); European Foundation (1998- 2001); London School of Economics (1997-2000)
24 building a fair asylum system
Appendix 2: . Thursday 8th May 2003 . Monday 19th May 2003 Meeting dates . Monday 26th May 2003 . Thursday 29th May 2003 . Monday 2nd June 2003 . Tuesday 10th June 2003 . Monday 16th June 2003 . Friday 27th June 2003 . Friday 4th July 2003 . Monday 7th July 2003 . Friday 18th July 2003 . Tuesday 22nd July 2003
25 building a fair asylum system
Appendix 3: Working Paper 1: Introductory reading . Update: Asylum, Parliamentary Resources Unit, Winter Evidence 2002/2003 . A Concise Guide to Migration Issues, Migration Watch UK Bulletin No. 1, 2 January 2003 . The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 3 January 2003 . Asylum trends in industrialised countries, UNHCR, 13 March 2003 . Asylum statistics, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 28 February 2003 . IAS Election Manifesto 2001, Immigration Advisory Service, 1 May 2001 . People flow: Managing migration in the New European Commonwealth, DEMOS briefing . Asylum in Germany, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 7 September 2001 . British Views On Immigration, MORI, 10 February 2003 . Practical measures needed now to end the asylum crisis, Timothy Kirkhope, 21 January 2003 . Asylum Policy, Conservatives, 28 January 2003
Working Paper 2: Current legal dimension of asylum . Making an Appeal, Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk on 30 April 2003. . Immigration and Asylum Update, New Law Journal, 25 April 2003 . A review of Exceptional Leave to Remain, Migration Watch UK Bulletin No. 10 . Don’t send me back to where I was raped, The Mirror, 29 March 2003 . Afghan refugees put on aircraft back to Kabul, The Times, 29 April 2003 . Judge urges changes to stop asylum-seekers ‘playing system’, The Times, 10 April 2003
26 building a fair asylum system
. Judges prepare for battle with Blunkett, Daily Telegraph, 27 February 2003 . Court rules that Blunkett asylum policy is illegal, The Times, 20 February 2003 . Blunkett to fight asylum ruling, The Guardian, 20 February 2003 . Winstanley-Burgess to shut as low legal aid rates and long hours take their toll, Law Gazette, 20 March 2003 . Immigration firms to join pilot duty solicitor scheme, Law Gazette, 27 March 2003 . Keeping up standards, Law Gazette, 25 April 2003 . Judges accused of ‘milking asylum law’, Daily Telegraph, 22 February 2003 . The asylum seekers I meet are so often leering, arrogant liars. But each one is worth £1,500 of taxpayers’ cash to us legal aid lawyers, Mail on Sunday, 27 April 2003
Working Paper 3: Current social dimension of asylum . Education: The impact of asylum seekers, Migration Watch . Turkish children organised reign of terror at German school, Sunday Telegraph, 30 March 2003 . Asylum seekers: Access to NHS treatment, Department of Health, www.doh.gov.uk accessed 9 May 2003 . Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the London Health Strategy, Department of Health, www.doh.gov.uk accessed 9 May 2003 . Health services for asylum seekers and refugees, Refugee Council Briefing, July 2002 . Blunkett’s race warning, Daily Telegraph, 21 January 2003 . Support for Asylum Seekers, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 25 February 2003 . Implications of the Government’s appeal on asylum benefits, Migration Watch . Let asylum seekers stay – but don’t give them a penny, Theodore Dalrymple, Daily Telegraph, 6 August 2003
27 building a fair asylum system
. Asylum seekers’ employment concession, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 26 July 2002 . Work Permits and Immigration, Migration Watch Bulletin No 9 . We’re a job centre, not a safe haven, Alasdair Palmer, Sunday Telegraph, 1 December 2002 . Immigrants ‘will double demand for new homes’, The Times, 3 July 2002 . Asylum seekers offload on rural towns, Daily Telegraph, 2 February 2003
Working Paper 4: Current economic and domestic dimensions of asylum . Refugees and asylum seekers: the economic argument, Refugee Action . Migrants – Do they bring economic benefit?, Migration Watch, Bulletin No 8 . The migrant population in the UK: fiscal effects, Ceri Gott and Karl Johnston, Home Office Occasional Paper No 77 (Extract) . Immigration, CBI Issue Statement, www.cbi.org.uk accessed on 20 May 2003 . £2bn bill for flood of asylum seekers, Daily Telegraph, 1 March 2003 . The black economy ‘draws asylum seekers to Britain’, Daily Mail, 21 May 2003 . Asylum antics, Financial Times, 24/25 May 2003 . Flaws in the fortress, Guardian, 27 March 2003 . Playing this crude numbers games plays into the hands of xenophobes, Independent, 23 May 2003 . Seeking refuge, The Times, 23 May 2003 . Unhealthy tourism, Daily Telegraph, 23 May 2003 . Whitehall turf wars defeat fight against asylum abuse, Daily Express, 26 May 2003 . NHS magnet for asylum seekers, Daily Mail, 26 May 2003 . What a joke, The Sun, 23 May 2003 . Asylum shame, Daily Mirror, 28 May 2003
28 building a fair asylum system
Working Paper 5: Current international dimension of asylum . Israeli Asylum Policy, Conservative Friends of Israel, 2003 . Israel, U.S. Committee for Refugees . Australia, U.S. Committee for Refugees . The 1951 Refugee Convention – Q & A, www.unccr.ch, 2 August 2001 . EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, House of Commons Library Standard Note, 27 February 2003 . Comparison of International Asylum Systems . The European Convention of Human Rights . The 1952 Geneva Convention and 1967 New York Protocol
Working Paper 6: Current economic and domestic dimensions of asylum . The Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP’s submission to the House of Common Home Affairs Committee, June 2003 . Sir Andrew Green’s submission to the Kirkhope Commission, June 2003 . Keith Best’s submission to the Kirkhope Commission, June 2003
29