Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

HOME OFFICE ASYLUM AMNESTY COINCIDED WITH HIGH COURT CRITICISM

  • Comment
The Home Office announced its biggest-ever asylum amnesty on the day a High Court judge criticised David Blunkett's...
The Home Office announced its biggest-ever asylum amnesty on the day a High Court judge criticised David Blunkett's handling of the asylum system.

An estimated 50,000 refugees could be allowed to stay in the UK indefinitely thanks to the home secretary's decision to offer a deal to 15,000 families.

Mr Blunkett's official spokesman said most of the eligible families were

failed asylum seekers who had exhausted the main appeals process but had not yet been deported.

The move came on the same day as a senior judge pinpointed the lack of an

'adequate, efficient decision-making procedure' as the main reason why the

courts were being flooded with an 'almost unmanageable' number of asylum

support cases.

Mr Justice Maurice Kay, sitting at the High Court in London, criticised the home secretary and his officials for failing to fully follow guidelines

already laid down by the courts for processing such cases.

The Conservatives said the amnesty would make Britain a 'magnet' for asylum

seekers and criticised the government for making the announcement on the day Concorde made its farewell flight.

'We all know the government has buried bad news in the past - coinciding

today's news with the final Concorde fly-by is in this same lamentable

tradition,' said shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin.

Mr Blunkett said that going ahead with the amnesty had been a 'difficult

decision'.

In what he described as a 'one-off exercise', the offer will apply to

families who sought asylum in the UK before 2 October 2000.

The Home Office is currently supporting 12,000 families who fall into that

category, with up to a further 3,000 supporting themselves by working

illegally.

Moving all 12,000 claimants off asylum support will save £180m, plus additional savings in legal aid.

Once they have been granted leave to remain in the UK the families will be

eligible for m ainstream benefits.

At the High Court, Mr Justice Kay, who is in charge of the listing of asylum support legal challenges, said the home secretary was falling 'miles short' of achieving targets.

The judge said he also 'did not accept' assertions made on Mr Blunkett's

behalf that he had no power to provide emergency accommodation for destitute asylum seekers who were then forced to turn to the courts for assistance.

The robust criticism came as the judge set out guidelines for the future in

a bid to stem the flow of applications for judicial review by asylum seekers who say their human rights are being infringed because of new rules which allow them to be denied support if they make late claims.

The guidelines were drawn up after 18 judges who deal with asylum cases

expressed concern over the growing numbers of applicants.

The judge said: 'I am satisfied that the main reason why the vast majority

of applications are being made and are succeeding is that ... there is not

in place an adequate, efficient decision-making procedure for the processing of representations.'

Under the asylum deal announced today, people who have committed a criminal

offence or lodged multiple asylum applications will be excluded, as will

so-called 'asylum shoppers' who have previously made an asylum claim in

another European country.

Mr Blunkett said: 'Granting this group indefinite leave to remain and

enabling them to work is the most cost-effective way of dealing with the

situation and will save taxpayers' money on support and legal aid.

'These are difficult decisions but I do not believe it is the best use of

taxpayers' money to take these expensive long-standing individual appeals

through the courts.

'This one-off exercise will enable those who have suffered years of

uncertainty over their status to move off benefits and into work to fully

contribute to society.'

Mr Blunkett's official spokesman said that it was impo ssible to put a figure on the total number of people who will be allowed to stay in the UK, but he said it would be at least 30,000 including children, and did not disagree with an estimate of 50,000 or more.

The families were largely from Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

and Turkey, he said.

Mr Blunkett's spokesman said it would be the largest amnesty programme in

recent years, compared with 21,500 given amnesty by previous home secretary

Jack Straw in 1998-1999, and 32,300 under the Tories between 1991 and 1994.

Officials also announced plans for measures to end all benefits for failed

asylum seeker families if they refuse to take up the offer of a voluntary,

free flight home.

The spokesman said these proposals - which will require new laws to be

passed by Parliament - could see asylum seeker children taken into care if

their parents were denied support.

'We can't allow the children to starve because of the actions of their

parents,' he added.

The spokesman conceded that voluntary return schemes had not been a success

so far, with poor levels of take-up.

'Having offered a bit of carrot, there is a need for a bit more stick,' he

said.

Shadow home secretary Mr Letwin said: 'This decision will make Britain a

magnet for asylum seekers who now know that even if their cases are rejected they could be allowed to stay.'

Nick Pearce, director of left-wing think-tank the IPPR, said: 'This is a

difficult decision for any politician to make, but its the right one. It's

sensible and pragmatic, and fair to the families concerned.'

STRAND NEWS SERVICE

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.