Asylum Bill Myths
December 2003
"You are planning to take children away from asylum seekers to blackmail them to leave the country."
This is a complete distortion of our plans. This issue is not about the Government 'targeting children' it is about how to remove more failed asylum claimants - people who have exhausted all rights of appeal and have no right to remain in the UK, while causing the least amount of harm to the children involved.. The Government has three choices when faced with these families.
Choice One is to let everyone stay and tear up our immigration laws altogether. This is a non-starter.
Choice Two is to detain more families in secure removal centres to ensure they can be removed quickly. But these centres are not a happy environment for children and we try to keep their presence in them to a minimum.
Choice three is to do everything we can to encourage people to take a paid-for flight home. Why? Because enforced removals - where immigration officers have to take families from their homes in the middle of the night - are traumatic for the children involved. We want to avoid this wherever possible but despite the fact we pay for flights and offer generous resettlement grants, many of these failed claimants still refuse to leave. That is why we are planning on removing state benefits when people refuse to take our offer to leave. However, we will continue to protect children from destitution, whatever the selfish actions of their parents who are trying to frustrate the immigration laws of the UK.
"But this will inevitably mean children are taken into care"
No it won't. We will do everything we can to encourage parents to avoid putting their children at risk by refusing a resettlement deal, not least because it will make an enforced removal more likely which is traumatic for their children. If these parents continue to refuse to leave, local authorities will have to take whatever action is necessary to protect the children. In most cases, this would not involve taking children into care; this would clearly be a last resort which would only affect a tiny minority of cases as it does at the moment.
"You are treating children of asylum seekers worse than the indigenous population"
No we are not. The legislation that protects the rights of UK children is the same as that used to protect children of failed asylum claimants. The same judgements about the best interests of the child will continue to have to be taken by local authorities on a case by case basis. However, we make no apology for saying that we are not obliged to provide state support - housing and benefits - for failed claimants who have no right to stay here and are refusing a resettlement package to go home.
"The Tories have got a more humane policy on asylum than Labour has"
Even by Michael Howard's standards, his hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. When Michael Howard was Home Secretary, he passed a law withdrawing benefits from all asylum seekers, not just those whose claims had failed. This was successfully challenged in the courts but if carried out, would have left thousands of children destitute, some of them from families who had escaped from death and torture and were waiting to be given refugee status in the UK. David Davis voted for this law too.
Because under Michael Howard, it took an average of 20 months to process an initial asylum claim (compared to just two months under David Blunkett) Michael Howard was prepared to leave families desperate and poverty-stricken for nearly two years while their claim was being processed.
And don't forget their current plans would see asylum seeking families flown halfway around the world to giant processing centres on their mystery island - hardly the best way to look after children.
"Labour has deliberately spun this story behind the scenes to get good headlines."
Again, not true. The policy was announced by a Home Office press release on October 24th, was reported in the media at the time,and formed part of the consultation on the Asylum Bill published on October 27th. The story which appeared in the Observer on November 23rd was briefed by opponents of the plan, as was obvious by the way it distorted the Government's plans.
"You are trying to get rid of appeals for asylum seekers"
No we are not. We are simply proposing there should be one right of appeal for most asylum claimants as with other walks of life, such as social security benefit appeals.
The part of the current appeal system we are removing overturns less than 3% of decisions and we are ensuring the appeals tribunal decisions can be reviewed if there is a point of law. At the moment, failed asylum seekers launch repeated appeals with no prospect of success, simply to delay removal.
"You are getting rid of legal aid"
Again, this is completely wrong. We are not axing legal aid, but reform is necessary because it has doubled from 80 million to 170 million in two years. We are going to place a threshold on the amount of legal aid asylum seekers are entitled to at the initial stage. This is sensible and will allow claims to be put forward on the basis of good legal advice. For appeals we will remove the automatic right to legal aid and replace it with a merits test to ensure those who have a genuine case for appeal get the help they need. At the same time, we are bringing in tough new powers to deal with the cowboy legal advisers who currently exploit the system.
"This is another Asylum Bill but the others haven't worked"
Not true. Thanks to the transformation of the system in the last three years, we have halved asylum claims in a year, we have the lowest backlog of claims in a decade, most initial decisions are taken within eight weeks and we are removing more failed claimants than ever before - an average of 1,500 people a month. But we must still do more and our new Asylum Bill will focus on the remaining parts of the system needing reform. Our measures are absolutely vital in dealing with a system which is ruthlessly exploited by criminal gangs.
But thanks to our laws, the moving of our border controls to France, the closure of the Sangatte camp and tighter Channel Tunnel security, we have already stopped 6,300 illegal immigrants entering Britain this year