The Parish Church of St John-at-Hampstead

20th-26th June, 2005

As the election campaign showed, arguments over the issues of immigration and asylum policies stir fierce emotions. Now that the campaign is over, Refugee Week provides an opportunity and a time to consider more calmly what concerns we should have for refugees and those who need the protection of asylum given to those recognised as having refugee status.

A refugee is defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention as a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country or to return there for fear of persecution. One of the Convention’s most important provisions is the obligation on signatory governments, of which this country is one, not to expel or return asylum seekers to territories where they face persecution. It also provides that refugees are entitled to have the freedom to practice their religion, access the courts, elementary education and public assistance, and enjoy equality with other foreign nationals in the field of jobs and housing.

A recent article by officers from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ UK Office emphasises the enduring importance of this Convention. On its 50th anniversary the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, declared that “fifty years later – fifty years of torture, persecution, violence and human rights abuse – the Convention is as important as ever for protecting those who have no other source of protection”.

Fine words indeed – but are they reflected in this country’s actions? There are reasons to suggest the contrary. I refer below to certain recent areas of concern and criticisms of the treatment of asylum seekers – restrictions of space prevent a full development of them in this magazine.

1. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004: introduced more limited provisions for appeal (and original proposals for abolishing altogether the right of access to the Courts were only withdrawn because of opposition in the House of Lords, led by the Bishops and Judges); made lack of proper documentation on arrival in this country a criminal offence, subject to limited defences; abolished the former entitlement to back payments of income support, housing and council tax benefits for those recorded as refugees; and withdrew support from failed asylum seeking families who do not co-operate with removal procedures in 14 days; and among other things provided for electronic monitoring.

2. An article in the Refugee Council’s magazine “Inexile” in November, 2004, examined a damning analysis published by the Immigration Advisory Service of the Home Office country information reports which are used for making asylum decisions. The deficiencies found contribute to poor quality initial decisions and may lead to an unjust result.

3. A talk in this church earlier this year by a doctor specialising in HIV/Aids cases showed that the dispersal system as operated by the National Asylum Support Service does not allow for proper medical consideration of asylum seekers suffering from those conditions and other serious illnesses, with damaging consequences to their treatment and health.

4. A report published in April, 2005, by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Asylum Aid on the effect of the greatly reduced and limited provisions for legal aid for asylum seekers introduced in 2004 illustrates and describes the negative impact of the cuts and the injustice resulting. In the words of Sir Bill Morris in the Foreword: “The evidence in this report paints a grim picture of justice denied, systematically and consistently”.

There are those who have concerns lest this country be swamped by immigrants. But since 2001 asylum applications in industrialised countries have dropped by 40% to the lowest levels since 1988 and in the UK such applications have fallen 61% in the last year alone. Home Office statistics show how the pattern changes as world conditions change. Countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, which a few years ago were in the top five UK asylum countries, have now dropped out. The top five in the last quarter of 2004 were Iran, China, Iraq, Somalia and Zimbabwe.