HAVE A LOOK

A T    T H I S

 

============================================================

============================================================

=======================

 NCADC News Service

=======================

"Asylum seekers and leave to remain in the UK"

 

- Adjournment debate, House of Commons, Speaker Neil Gerrard MP
 

Parliament reconvenes on Monday 10th October

 

(Immigration, Asylum And Nationality Bill goes to the committee stage on 18th October and will be sitting for three days, making six sessions in all (18th, 20th and 25th).  Then possibly back to the House of Commons for 3rd Reading 2nd week of November.)

 

Indefinite Leave to Remain?

The government has basically abolished "asylum"

From the 30th August 2005, people recognised as refugees no longer qualify for indefinite leave to remain but instead will be given 5 years temporary admission.
 

The Refugee Council said that as a result "Refugees will be left in a cruel limbo - they'll find it more difficult to get jobs, their children will not be able to plan for their future or do things like apply for university"

 

The cases of refugees will be "actively reviewed" at the end of the 5 years - they could still face deportation even though they have been recognised as refugees.

 

Neil Gerrard MP is concerned that this measure has been introduced without adequate parliamentary debate - and is the main speaker in an Adjournment Debate (Asylum seekers and leave to remain in the UK ) on Monday 10th October 2005 in the House of Commons.
 

NCADC asks that everyone encourages their MP to take part in the debate.

 

Neil Gerrard has tabled an Early Day Motion : EDM 569 - "Refugee Status and Leave to Remain in the UK".  If your MP is not on the below list of MPs who have signed the EDM, please ask him/her to do so ...

What is going to parliament on Monday 10th October, 2005

Being introduced by MP Gerrard, Neil

EDM 569: Refugee Status and Leave to Remain in the UK

"That this House is concerned at the proposal in the Government's five year strategy for asylum and immigration to end the practice of granting indefinite leave to remain in the UK to people who are given refugee status and to replace this by up to five years' temporary leave to remain; believes that while this may not be legally incompatible with the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention, it is a retrograde step since it reverses the policy of granting indefinite leave introduced by the Government in 1998 without any evidence either that problems have arisen as a result of the current policy or that other countries which grant only temporary leave benefit as a result; is further concerned that the uncertain position this will put refugees in is totally inconsistent with other Government policies to assist the integration of refugees in the UK; further believes that this will inevitably lead to inhumane decisions when refugee families with children are threatened with removal after living in the UK for several years and establishing family life, leading in turn to further pressure on the immigration appeals system, and the caseload of honourable Members; and urges the Government to abandon this unnecessary change."

 

With effect from 1st November 2005, all new applicants for naturalisation will have to demonstrate both knowledge of English language and of life in the UK. Applications received prior to that date will not be affected by this change. MORE

Behaviour that provokes terrorism will not be tolerated in the UK, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said today as he opened an urgent consultation on broadening exclusion and deportation powers. The Government is seeking views over the next two weeks, including those from key faith communities, on a proposed list of unacceptable behaviours. The Home Secretary will use the list when deciding whether to exclude or deport non-UK citizens on the grounds that their presence in the country is not conducive to the public good. - MORE

 

Illegal immigrant figure revealed

Up to 570,000 illegal immigrants are living in the UK, according to a new Home Office estimate. It is the first time the government has put a figure on the number of illegal immigrants, something Tony Blair in the past said was impossible. The Home Office says its best estimate is 430,000 but the number could be between 310,000 and 570,000. The Tories claim the estimate shows an immigration shambles and say it should have been released during the election. The Home Office estimate does not include asylum seekers whose claims are being processed, or who are appealing against a refusal. It was produced by taking the numbers of foreign-born people living in the UK recorded in the 2001 Census and subtracting the estimated number of legal immigrants. Home Office officials say they have sought to take into account the fact that some illegal immigrants may not have filled in their census forms. Immigration Minister Tony McNulty said the figures were a "best guess". "By its very nature, it is impossible to quantify accurately, and that remains the case," he said. Mr McNulty said the estimate underlined the need for identity cards.

When it was put to him that Spain, which has ID cards, has a higher number of illegal immigrants, Mr McNulty said the UK identity card scheme would involve a more sophisticated national database. He denied the release of the estimate was timed to help push ID cards through Parliament or that they had been held back until after the general election. During the election campaign, the prime minister refused to estimate the number of illegal immigrants. "You cannot determine specifically how many people are here illegally," said Mr Blair as he was asked 20 times for a figure in an interview with the BBC's Jeremy Paxman.  Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis said: "This report shows unequivocally that the prime minister was wrong when he claimed it was impossible to know how many failed illegal immigrants there are in Britain. "The fact that there are over 500,000 illegal immigrants living in this country is a shocking indictment of the total shambles that is Labour's immigration and asylum policy." Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten said ministers must seriously consider an amnesty for long-term illegal immigrants, coupled with stronger border controls in future. He said: "The government has got to face facts. "The resources don't exist to deport half a million people, and many of these individuals will have been here for years and have children." During the election campaign, ministers branded "grossly inaccurate" a figure of 500,000 produced for the government by immigration expert John Salt. Professor Salt himself said it was the result of a hypothetical exercise but he is credited with helping on the estimate published on Thursday. The chairman of immigration pressure group Migrationwatch, Sir Andrew Green, said: "Having denied it vigorously before the election, the government now admit that the number of illegal immigrants is approaching half a million, or half the population of Birmingham. "Even this looks like a considerable underestimate with little allowance made for illegal entrants and those who overstay their visas." But Danny Sriskandarajah, from the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: "Many of these people have probably entered the UK legally but have stayed on, often making important contributions to our economy."

 

Asylum detentions in UK 'breaking law'

The UK government is breaking the law by locking up too many asylum seekers before their claims are dealt with, Amnesty International says. A report by the human rights group estimates 25,000 asylum applicants were held in detention centres during 2004. It says many of these were vulnerable, such as pregnant women, families with children and torture victims. The Home Office said detention powers were essential to ensure effective immigration controls. Home Office minister Tony McNulty told the BBC's Today Programme that he disputed the figures Amnesty had come up with - but he conceded that people needed to be in the system for as short a time as possible. This was true "whether they need to be removed or go on to secure refugee status," he said. Asylum seekers can be held at any time during their application to stay in the UK. Ministers say the powers are needed to prevent people from absconding in the run-up to removal from the UK, and the government has tripled the number of detention spaces since 1997. But Amnesty says the government's use of detention for asylum seekers is a "lottery", dependent on the availability of beds rather than whether it is necessary or appropriate. It says some people had been held without a final decision on their application for up to two years, a move it says is illegal because the detentions did not appear to be leading to removal from the UK.

'No evidence'

Kate Allen, the UK director of Amnesty, told the BBC there was no evidence that people were going to abscond. "All the people that we talked to and met in the duration of our research were abiding by Home Office reporting restrictions - they had no intention of absconding. "There were families with young children, there were pregnant women, there were women who had been raped. "There were people who'd been in the most appalling of situations, and there was no evidence that these people were about to abscond. "And the criteria, as I say, was just so broad that literally anybody could be taken into detention at any moment". The government's detention programme has been beset by problems including a riot that destroyed one centre, multiple incidences of self-harm, sporadic protests and a small number of suicides. Amnesty said its interviews with detainees found some people were being held for long periods with apparently little chance of removal from the UK for a variety of complex reasons. It added that more asylum seekers selected for a "fast-track" decision were now being detained for all of their application, a concern echoed earlier this month by a human rights report from the Council of Europe. A Home Office spokesman said the Amnesty report would be studied in detail, and that the government welcomed the opportunity to have a "sensible debate" about asylum issues. "The power to detain an individual is an essential part of protecting the integrity and effectiveness of our immigration controls," said the spokesman. "It is also essential that those we do detain should be treated with humanity and dignity and we are committed to ensuring that this is the case." But Maeve Sherlock, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the report's evidence was stark. "People are being detained arbitrarily, without proper consideration of whether it is appropriate or indeed necessary to do so," she said. "Today marks the beginning of Refugee Week, when we celebrate the positive contribution refugees make to the UK and also reflect on why people seek sanctuary here. "It can't be right to lock people up simply because they have asked for safety here - seeking asylum is not a crime."

 

'Child sacrifices in London'

Boys from Africa are being murdered as human sacrifices in London churches. They are brought into the capital to be offered up in rituals by fundamentalist Christian sects, according to a shocking report by Scotland Yard. Followers believe that powerful spells require the deaths of "unblemished" male children. Police believe such boys are trafficked from cities such as Kinshasa where they can be bought for a little as £10. The report, leaked ahead of its publication next month, also cites examples of  African children being tortured and killed after being identified as "witches" by church pastors. The 10-month study was commissioned after the death of Victoria Climbié, who was starved and beaten to death after they said she was possessed by the devil. The aim of the Met study was to create an "open dialogue" with the African and Asian community in Newham and Hackney. In discussions with African community leaders, officers were told of examples of children being murdered because their parents or carers believe them to be possessed by evil spirits. Earlier-this month Sita Kisanga, 35, was convicted at the Old Bailey of torturing an eight-year-old girl from Angola she accused of being a witch. Kisanga was a member of the Combat Spirituel church in Dalston. Many such churches, supported mainly by people from West Africa, sanction aggressive forms of exorcism on those thought to be possessed. There are believed to be 300 such churches in the UK, mostly in London. The report was put together by an expert social worker and lawyer for the Met after talking to hundreds of people in African communities in a series of workshops. It uncovered allegations of witchcraft spells, child trafficking and HIV-positive people who believe that by having sex with a child they will be "cleansed".

An extract reads: "People who are desperate will seek out experts to cast spells for them. "Members of the workshop stated that for a spell to be powerful it required a sacrifice involving a male child unblemished by circumcision. They allege that boy children are being trafficked into the UK for this purpose." It adds: "A number of pastors maintain that God speaks through them and lets them know when someone is possessed. "It is therefore their duty to deliver the child or adult from the evil spirit. "After much debate they acknowledge that children labelled as possessed are in danger of being beaten by their families. "However, they would not accept they played a role in inciting such violence."

Last month Scotland Yard revealed it had traced just two out of 300 black boys aged four to seven reported missing from London schools in a three-month period. The true figure for missing boys and girls is feared to be several thousand a year. The scale of the problem emerged through the murder inquiry following the discovery of a child's torso in the Thames in September 2001. The identity of the victim, named Adam by police, is not known but his background was traced to Nigeria. It is believed he died in a ritual sacrifice. John Azar, who helped the police on that inquiry, told Radio4's Today programme that the known cases could be "the tip of the iceberg". Police working on the Adam case have found children are being sold to traffickers on the streets of major African cities for less than £10 and then smuggled into the UK. The children arrive in London armed with false documents and accompanied by adults who believe they will bolster their asylum claims.

Dr Richard Hoskins, a lecturer of Theology and Religious Studies at King's College, said: "We know this through work we have been doing on the Adam inquiry. These children are ripe for people to abuse. They are easy prey." A Met spokesman said: "We undertook a project aimed at improving our knowledge of issues impacting child abuse within the African and Asian communities of London. The aim of the project was to open a dialogue within these communities and encourage a debate which would help reduce the risks of harm to children." The report says there is a wide gulf between these communities and social services and protection agencies with many people in ethnic communities scared to speak out. The report concludes police face a "wall of silence" when dealing with such cases. Experts differ on the merits of the Scotland Yard report. Dr William Les Henry, a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths College, said aspects of the reports were pigeonholing crimes together and were patronising and racist.

He said: "When we think about these cases we can see the same kind of patterns of behaviour in European cultures but they are interpreted in completely different ways. "This is one of the crises with social sciences anyway, when they are supposedly interpreting the folk ways or cultural habits of alien cultures." He said that the models such reports are based on are that "Africans are less civilised, less rational". But Dr Hoskins said: "This is very detailed, qualitative report that actually comes out of the communities. "This is not white people saying this. This has actually comes from the communities authored by people in the community and that really stymies the racist line." He added: "We are dealing with real cases here. When you actually talk to them, these are hard and fast facts. "So I don't think we are getting wron

Discretionary leave

The system in UK of granting leave to people exceptionally outside the Rules has been changed. The new system applies to all decisions taken on or after 1 April 2003. Exceptional leave has been replaced by leave granted on the basis of Humanitarian Protection, details of which are set out in the API on Humanitarian Protection, and by Discretionary Leave for a limited number of cases which do not qualify for Humanitarian Protection but qualify for a period of leave. This instruction explains the limited circumstances in which it would be appropriate to exercise this discretion to grant leave outside the Rules. MORE

ECHR - European Convention on Human Rights

Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, an individual who wished to bring a claim against the UK government for acting in breach of the Convention could only do so before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, having demonstrated that they had exhausted all remedies in the United Kingdom courts. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) was adopted in 1950 and came into force in 1953. It was designed to give binding effect to the guarantee of various rights and freedoms in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, adopted in December 1948. The Convention is a treaty of the Council of Europe, which was established after the end of the Second World War with the aim of protecting Europe against totalitarianism and a repeat of wartime atrocities. The Convention is intended to protect human rights in countries which are democratic by seeking to secure a fair balance between the general interest of society and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. The rights contained within the Convention can be relied upon by any person, non-Governmental organisation or group of individuals and in some cases by companies and other bodies, but not by governmental organisations, such as local authorities, as the Convention is about protecting fundamental rights and freedoms against the power of the State. MORE

Frequently Asked Questions-UK Immigration & Asylum Appeals.

Visit Asylum & Immigration Tribunal website using the link below and learn more UK Immigration & Asylum Appeals procedures. Knowledge is wealth.  MORE

 

A total of 44 bills and six draft bills are in the 2005 Queen's Speech - ensuring a packed legislative schedule in the parliamentary session that follows the general election. And one further bill - on reforming the House of Lords - is mentioned but no timetable is given.  CLICK HERE FOR FULF LIST

Respect' key to Blair third term

Tony Blair has pledged to create a "culture of respect" as he put moves to tackle crime and disorder at the heart of his third term agenda.  Public service reform also figured strongly in the Queen's Speech, setting out the government's new programme. The 44 bills for Parliament to debate by November 2006 included ID cards and laws against religious hatred. The Conservatives say Labour has copied much of their agenda. The Lib Dems say Mr Blair has not listened to voters. The packed legislative programme includes plans to ban smoking in some public places, tackle hospital-acquired infections and to boost school standards.

 

Strasbourg – 11.05.2005 – The Committee of Ministers of the 46 nation Council of Europe has adopted a 20-point set of guidelines to be used by as many national authorities responsible for foreigner return as possible. The guidelines are a response to a number of recent fatal accidents during forced return, such as those noted by the Parliamentary Assembly in 2002, which have prompted the Committee of Ministers to gather together the various existing standards into one document. They include certain examples of good practice that include innovative and promising ways to reconcile a return policy with full respect of human rights. The approach adopted in the guidelines is based on the idea that human rights and effective procedures for return are mutually compatible. They stress the need for more transparency and better communication. This is the first international text to look at all stages of the forced return process, from the identification of an irregular situation to the return itself. It is also the first time states have agreed to put every aspect of the issue into one text. FULL INFORMATION

Facing Deportation: No one can fight against it alone. NCADC has been supporting individuals, families and communities to campaign against deportation for *10 years - last year there were more individual anti-deportation campaigns, more local grass-roots coalitions, and more pockets of resistance against unjust and inhumane immigration policies than ever before. Anti-Deportation Campaigns can Work!!!! There is never any guarantee that a campaign will be successful, but there are plenty of indications that campaigns can work. NCADC have to date supported 127 successful Anti-Deportation campaigns.   MORE

 

"People's Tribunal" on the Treatment of "Failed" Asylum Seekers
March 31 2005 at 11:32 PM

"People's Tribunal" on the Treatment of "Failed" Asylum Seekers

by Kath Sainsbury

Activists in Tees Valley have been horrified at the treatment of some of their friends who are "failed" asylum seekers. On Saturday 12th March 2005 the North East Coalition for Asylum Rights organised a forum in which people could give 'evidence' before a 'Tribunal' who would report their conclusions and hopefully submit the document to the Home Office with a request that the report be considered to inform future policy.

Tribunal comprised Alasdair Gillespie - University of Teesside, Vicky Holt - North Tees Health Trust, and Father Peter Keeling - St. Francis RC Church.

We listened to witness accounts from local people who had befriended families who were seeking asylum in the area. Those families had then been forcibly removed by the Immigration Services when their appeals had been refused.

Witnesses spoke of their own trauma at the methods used to wrench people from the safety of their communities and the injustice of the UK system that allows vulnerable, frightened people to be returned to danger.

We heard how Sebastian and his family had been taken from their home in the early hours of the morning. He wasn't even allowed to get dressed or collect his file of personal papers which was all he had to establish who he was and what he had been through.
The family were returned to Sri Lanka at a time when the Tamil Tigers were recruiting boy soldiers. Sebastian was terrified that his sons would be targets for recruitment. A week later, the Tsunami struck. Friends from the Church heard that the family were safe, but have heard nothing since.

Another witness spoke of the personal intimidation she had experienced from Immigration Officers when she had tried to help a Kosovan family. She had developed a close relationship with the family, who would sometimes stay at her home. During their removal she had gone home to collect essential medication and some other personal items that were at her house. When she arrived, she said she found her home surrounded by Immigration Officers who told her they had a warrant for her arrest.

The family say they were forced onto a plane despite the fact that their solicitor had submitted a fresh application based on medical evidence.

We heard a harrowing story of a young Croatian woman who said she was arrested and handcuffed in the street, then held in a police cell for 3 days surrounded by drunks and unable even to have a shower.

Then there was the 14 year old English boy whose heart is broken because his best friend at school was imprisoned at Dungavel Detention Centre before being forcibly removed back to Colombia.
Other speakers included Barbara Hungin, from a local Justice and Peace Group, who spoke of the dismay shared by many asylum seekers that having disclosed the most painful personal experiences, they are often not believed. Barbara talked about the constant state of fear and anxiety that people had to endure and said she felt totally powerless that we were at the mercy of politics.

A local educationalist spoke of how she had to give up her job as an interpreter because she simply couldn't bear the cruelty of the Home Office asylum system. She now gives intensive English lessons to the children of families seeking asylum and helps them to integrate into their community. This still carries an element of frustration when anxious teachers ring her to ask about a child, only to find that the family have been deported.

Dr. Paul Williams, a GP with expertise in the field of treating victims of torture referred to the recent report issued by the Medical Foundation for the Treatment of Victims of Torture which details evidence of what he described as "systematic physical and verbal abuse" by Immigration Officers during the removal process. Dr. Williams called for action to deal with the perpetrators and training programmes to ensure that detainees are treated with dignity and respect.

He also presented his own statistics which showed that the majority of his patients suffered from depression or anxiety as a result of the abuse they experienced in their own countries.

Finally we heard the moving testimony of Olivia, from Burundi, who described how it felt to live in constant fear that the Immigration Service would come for her.
The Tribunal is expected to report its findings in the near future.

"No Move To 'No Win, No Fee' In Asylum And Immigration Cases Asylum and immigration appellants must not be denied justice"

Constitutional Affairs Committee: News Release

Committee Office, House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA

Committee Contact:
020 7219 8196/8198
Media Enquiries: Adele Brown 020 7219 0724

22 March 2005

Embargoed: Not for publication or broadcast, in any form, before 00.01hrs, Wednesday 23 march 2005


No Move To 'No Win, No Fee' In Asylum And Immigration Cases Asylum and immigration appellants must not be denied justice

An attempt by the Government to restrict legal aid for asylum appeals is today condemned in a new Report by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee.

Under a new Government scheme, due to start on 4 April, solicitors would not be paid until after an appeal case is heard, and in most instances, only if the case was successful.

Lawyers, especially from small firms or charities, may be reluctant to take on cases unless they are certain of success. This could lead to a denial of justice, the Report warns.

The Government has denied that the scheme amounts to a 'no win, no fee' agreement. However, the Committee remains concerned that the proposals could deny justice to appellants who could face death, torture or other degrading treatment if they cannot appeal and are deported.

A previous, failed attempt by the Government to restrict the right of asylum and immigration seekers to appeal to the High Court was criticised by the Committee last year. The Committee's new Report says that the Government should not be able to use the legal aid system to restrict legitimate appeals.

Commenting, Committee Chairman Rt Hon Alan Beith MP said:

"The Government has set the bar too high on this occasion. No-one would argue that frivolous asylum and immigration cases should be funded by the public purse. However, these proposals swing too far in the other direction. Few solicitors will want to take on cases if there is a significant chance that they won't be paid. This could happen even if the appeal is considered by a judge to have some merit. Discouraging solicitors and barristers from taking on all but the most cast-iron cases could amount to a serious denial of justice. The Government must re-think its position."

Notes for editors:

1. The Government has launched three major reforms on the asylum and immigration field over the past few years. A previous report by the Constitutional Affairs Committee (Second Report of Session 2003-04, Asylum and Immigration Appeals, HC 211-I, Feb 2004) said that government plans to prevent courts' jurisdiction over asylum and immigration tribunal cases, and appeals to higher courts were "without precedent" and that oversight must be retained both as a matter of constitutional principle and to ensure justice.

2. New proposals from the Government (which this report covers) were subsequently launched in November 2004. They set out the draft regulations for legal aid arrangements in England and Wales for the review and reconsideration of appeal decisions made by the new Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), which is to be launched on 4 April 2005. The proposals raise two main issues: the introduction of a system of retrospective funding; a new, high threshold that claimant's lawyers would have to meet to obtain funding - i.e. far more than the current 50% prospect of success; and the possibility that even successful cases might not attract legal aid support.

3. Evidence transcripts and terms of reference (see Press notice 4, 10 December 2004) are available on the Committee's website (see below).

4. Committee Membership is as follows: Rt Hon Alan Beith MP (Chairman), Peter Bottomley MP, Hilton Dawson MP, James Clappison MP, Ross Cranston QC MP, Andrew Rosindell MP, Clive Soley MP, Ann Cryer MP, Keith Vaz MP, Jim Cunningham MP, Dr Alan Whitehead MP

Further information:

Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/conaffcom

Media Enquiries: Adele Brown, Tel 020 7219 0724 / 07711 155 722, email: brownac@parliament.uk

Specific Committee Information: Tel 020 7219 8196/ 8198, email: conaffcom@parliament.uk

Select Committee Calendar: http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news3.cfm

Watch committees and parliamentary debates online: www.parliamentlive.tv

 

Publications / Reports / Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk

 

 

===============

 NCADC News Service

===============

Would recipients of this message please pass it on to any contacts in Ireland

 

Ireland: If you are a parent of an Irish child who was born before 1st January 2005, you can now re-apply for permission to stay in Ireland.

Message from Immigrant Council of  Ireland

http://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/newsys.htm

A Social Innovations Ireland Initiative

If you are a parent of an Irish child who was born before 1st January 2005, you can now re-apply for permission to stay in Ireland.
What has happened?

The Irish Government has put in place a new system to accept applications for permission to stay in Ireland from parents of Irish children who were born before January 1st 2005. This new process is now in place and the Department of Justice is now receiving applications from parents who would like to re-apply for permission to stay in Ireland on the basis of having an Irish child.

Who does the new system apply to?

This new system applies to all parents from outside Ireland, whose child was born before January 1st 2005, and does not apply to parents of children born on/after January 1st 2005. If you would like more information on the rights of your child born since January 1st 2005, please contact the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

Who should apply for permission to stay in Ireland under this new process?

All parents from outside Ireland, who have Irish children that were born before 1st January 2005, and have been living in Ireland since their birth, can apply for permission to remain in Ireland under this new scheme. Please note: If you previously applied for residency in Ireland on the basis of being a parent of an Irish child, you must RE-APPLY, using the new form which is now available. (see below and at: www.justice.ie).

If you have already received permission to remain in Ireland as a parent of an Irish child, you do not have to re-apply as this new process does not affect you.

When is the deadline for applications?

All applications must be sent to the Department of Justice (address below) by the end of March 2005. This is the final deadline for receipt of applications.

Please read the government notice below and download the application form here:
http://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/newapp.pdf

Government Notice 14 January 2005

Notice to non-national parents of Irish born children  revised arrangements for the consideration of applications for permission to remain made by the non-national parents of Irish born children born before 1 January, 2005
The contents of this Notice do not affect those parents who have already been granted permission to remain in the State.

1.  This notice sets out details of the new arrangements which are being introduced with effect from today. Applications from non-national parents of Irish born children born before 1 January, 2005 for permission to remain in the State can be made on form IBC/05. This form is now available on our website at www.justice.ie Hard copies of the form will be available with effect from 21st January 2005 at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2, Garda District Headquarters stations outside Dublin and at all Reception and Integration Agency accommodation centres countrywide. Forms will also be distributed to various non-governmental organisations working with immigrants and asylum seekers. Blank forms can be photocopied and applications submitted on photocopied forms.

2.  Please note that if you have previously applied for permission to remain based on parentage of an Irish born child and your application was not processed to a conclusion, you must re-apply by completing an application form under this new scheme. If both parents are applying, they must do so on separate forms. Completed applications must be submitted before the end of March 2005. Applications will be processed as quickly as possible.

3.  Your completed application form should be accompanied by the following documents:

* Original passport/National Identity card (not GNIB card) of the adult applicant

*  Original birth certificate for Irish born child

*  2 passport size photographs of the adult applicant (each one signed on back)

*  Evidence of continuous residence in the State since the birth of the child (utility bills, lease/rental agreements, etc)

*  Letter from your Community Welfare Officer stating the period that you have been in receipt of welfare payments in the State

*  If you have been employed in the State, details of that employment, such as tax certificate, letter from employer, etc
Important: All documents must be original documents and copies of documents will not be accepted.

 If you are unable to provide any of the above documents, please include a note explaining why this is the case. If you have already sent any of the above documents to the Department please give details.

4.  Each applicant will be required to make a statutory declaration as to their future conduct which must be made in front of and signed by a Notary Public, a Commissioner for Oaths or a Peace Commissioner.

5.  Each case will be examined on its merits and successful applicants will be granted permission to remain for an initial period of two years. Applicants will be required to acknowledge that the granting of permission to remain does not give any entitlement to any other person, related or not, to enter the State.

This scheme does not make any provision for persons granted permission to be joined by family members from outside the State.

6.  Applications will be processed in the order in which they are received. In order to facilitate processing, queries will not be answered over the telephone. All queries should be put in writing and sent to the following address:
 Irish Born Child Unit
 Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
 P.O. Box 10003

 Dublin 2

End of Bulletin:

=======================================================================================

Grounds of applying for Indefinite Leave to Leave in UK

3. WHERE THE CLAIMANT QUALIFIES FOR OTHER FORMS OF LEAVE

Caseworkers should always consider whether the claimant qualifies for leave in accordance with any concessions which may currently be in place, such as the long residence, seven year child and family concessions, and the concession relating to asylum claims made before 1 July 1993.

3.1. Long Residence Rule
Where the claimant has lived continuously in the United Kingdom for at least ten years lawfully, or fourteen years of any legality, he will be eligible for the grant of indefinite leave to enter or remain under the long residence concession. For guidance on identifying such cases see Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDIs) Chapter 18 The Long Residence Rule. In such cases, the caseworker should seek the advice of a senior caseworker.

3.2. 'Seven year' concession
Where a human rights claimant has dependant children in the United Kingdom, and any of those children were born in the UK and are aged seven or more, or where a child born outside the UK has accumulated seven years or more continuous residence, it may be considered appropriate to grant indefinite leave to enter or remain. The individual circumstances of each case will need to be considered, and the caseworker should always seek the advice of a senior caseworker.

3.3. Family concession
Where the claimant applied for asylum before 2 October 2000 and has at present at least one dependant in the United Kingdom who is currently aged under 18 who has also been living in UK since 2 October 2000, the family may be eligible for the grant of indefinite leave to enter or remain.

3.4. Claims for asylum made before 1 July 1993
Where the asylum claim was made before 1 July 1993, and no decision on the claim has yet been made, but the claimant does not qualify for the grant of refugee status, the delay in reaching a decision would normally be considered to warrant the grant of indefinite leave to enter or remain. In such cases, the advice of a senior caseworker should be sought. If the senior caseworker agrees that the grant of indefinite leave might be appropriate, they should minute the file accordingly and forward it to Asylum Co-ordination Unit 11 (ACU 11).

3.5. Claims made under the ECHR only
Claimants may ask the Home Office to consider their fear of return to their country of origin under the ECHR only. The caseworker must decide first whether the fear of return relates to a Refugee Convention reason, and if it does, the claim must be considered as an asylum claim as well as a human rights claim.
If the claim does not relate to a Refugee Convention reason it must be considered as a standalone human rights claim following the guidance in the Asylum Policy Instructions on European Convention on Human Rights, Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave.

4. ARTICLES STATED EXPLICITLY BY THE CLAIMANT
Claimants or their representatives will sometimes explicitly state the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights under which they wish their claims to be considered (e.g. 'returning me to [country] would be a breach of Article 3 because I will be tortured'). It may have been made at any stage in the evidence gathering process. It may have been made only once or several times, and, if more than once, the nature and the content of each statement may be slightly or wholly different from ones that have been made previously. There may also be additions over time of more articles of the European Convention on Human Rights under which the claimant wishes his claim to be considered. The claim should be considered against every ECHR article mentioned in accordance with the latest Asylum Policy Instruction.

MORE INFORMATION


Source: Home Office, UK.

===============================

Tories plan migrant health checks

Non-European Union citizens wanting to work in the UK will have to undergo tests for Tuberculosis and HIV, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives. A positive test for TB would mean visa applications being turned down, while HIV would be dealt with case by case. Leader Michael Howard said the checks on new arrivals would help protect public health and the NHS. Labour said many tests were already done. The Lib Dems warned both parties against "pandering to prejudice". The proposals, which would be brought in if the Conservatives won the General Election, would not apply to people coming to the UK for less than six months unless they intended to work in health or childcare or teaching. Mr Howard said the plans were based on policies already in action in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. "It's very important that we should safeguard the good standards of public health that Britain enjoys," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Government figures suggest TB in England has increased by 25% over the past 10 years. "Nearly two thirds of people with TB are born abroad," said Mr Howard. "I don't think a responsible government can stand aside and do nothing in the face of this problem." But Mr Howard said the plans would not affect asylum applicants' claims. The proposals include:

People coming to the UK from outside the EU for between six and 12 months from a "high incidence TB country" will have to undergo a chest X-ray.

People coming to settle in the UK permanently from outside the EU will have to "demonstrate they have an acceptable standard of health".

They will also have to show they are unlikely to be a danger to public health and are unlikely to "impose significant costs or demands" on the NHS.

The tests will include a health check, chest X-rays for TB (except for children and pregnant women) and tests for hepatitis and HIV for over 16-year-olds.

Only the discovery of TB will mean people will be automatically denied a visa, other conditions will be dealt with on a "case by case basis". Mr Howard added: "At the next election people will face a clear choice: limited and controlled immigration under the Conservatives or unlimited immigration under Mr Blair." Labour immigration minister Des Browne said: "The Tories are a bit late to this issue. "As the government's five-year plan for immigration and asylum, published last week, says, 'We are implementing our existing powers by targeted health screening for TB in high-risk areas at the entry clearance stage. Those who are diagnosed would then need to seek treatment at home before being allowed to enter the UK'." Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "This is another worrying step in the war of words over asylum and immigration between Labour and the Conservatives. "Michael Howard knows perfectly well what bigger game he is playing, and history proves it is a very dangerous one." Lisa Power, head of policy at Aids charity the Terrence Higgins Trust said the policy was prejudice-based rather than evidence-based. "In fact, it would be more likely to drive people with health conditions to falsify tests while others gain entry by simple dint of their EU status," she said.

Immigration checks on Tube passengers banned

Random immigration checks on Tube passengers have been banned by Underground chiefs after they were exposed by the Evening Standard. We revealed how dozens of police and immigration officers at a time swooped on stations and asked foreign-sounding commuters to justify their presence in Britain. And after we uncovered the practice last summer, unhappy Tube chiefs have told the Home Office and police that their officers will no longer be allowed to carry out the raids. The sides are still in talks but already the number of operations has been cut and the Immigration Service has agreed to curb the way its officers work. Crucially, under the new rules only people suspected of being faredodgers, drug-dealers or other lawbreakers may be quizzed on their immigration status. Passengers who follow the rules cannot be questioned. A London Underground spokesman said: "We have established a protocol that no random checks should happen. As a result, the Immigration Service only work with police as part of preplanned, intelligence-led operations. "In practice this means that there will be limited occasions when these operations occur on Transport for London property. No law-abiding passengers will be stopped." British Transport Police assistant chief constable Paul Robb said: "Because it can be perceived as a very sensitive issue, we have been working with Transport for London to write a protocol for how we will operate on the Underground. As a result we have not done as many operations as was the case previously." Critics had claimed the raids were unfairly targeting black and Asian Londoners. Unlike police, the Immigration Service does not disclose figures on how many of the people it stops are from ethnic minorities. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "The decision to ban these operations is a victory for civil liberties and the Standard is to be congratulated. "Black and Asian people have every right to go about their business on the Underground without being stopped on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. "Trawling public places for failed asylum seekers is no substitute for having a proper system of deportation." The BTP said it had carried out around 80 joint operations with immigration officers in London since last April, a rate of two per week, in an initiative called Operation Donate. Raids were evenly split between Tube and mainline railway stations. In one operation, at Harrow-on-the-Hill last August, some people getting off trains were stopped by officers dressed in body armour and carrying handcuffs. Despite the curbs on Tube raids, the Immigration Service has stepped up its enforcement campaign across London including raids on workplaces employing illegal migrants.

 

 

Clarke unveils immigration plan

A new points system that aims to ensure migrants wanting to work in the UK have the right skills is at the heart of the government's new immigration strategy.  Home Secretary Charles Clarke told MPs migrants were vital for the UK economy and society but it needed controls.  The plans include fines for employers using illegal workers. There are also moves to prevent asylum abuse. The Tories say Labour is offering "half steps" and the Lib Dems say the plans may not produce an efficient system.

Fighting bigotry

The five-year plan comes as immigration looks increasingly likely play a contentious role in campaigning for the election - widely predicted for May. Tony Blair told BBC News there was real public concern and it was in Britain's interests to allow in only those migrants' whose skills were really needed. To critics who say he has taken too long to act, he said: "This requires a long, hard patient slog, not a magic bullet." In the Commons, Mr Clarke stressed the positive effects of immigration and warned: "It is a lack of confidence in our systems of control that can foster bigotry." He announced an end to the automatic right to settle for immigrants' families. Existing work permit schemes would be rolled into one Australian-style system where migrants qualified for a certain number of points according to their skills. A new labour market advisory group would recommend what skills British businesses needed.

Fingerprinting

In sectors particularly open to abuse, workers would have to pay money up front as a bond which they would only get back once they returned home. And all visa applicants would be fingerprinted as part of tighter border controls. The changes mean only high-skilled workers will be allowed to settle in the UK - temporary labour from inside the European Union will now fill low-skill vacancies. On asylum, Mr Clarke proposed that genuine refugees would no longer have permanent leave to remain in the UK. Instead, they would get permission to stay in the country for five years before it was decided whether it was safe for them to return to their countries of origin. He also promised more detention of failed asylum seekers and agreements to return them home. Maeve Sherlock, from the Refugees' Council, said refugees the plans risked leaving refugees "in limbo" for five years. "It seems particularly unfair on refugees who may have lost their whole families or suffered torture or, at worst, ethnic cleansing," she said.

Concern

Tory leader Michael Howard said immigration had "tripled under Mr Blair without any discussion, without any debate, without any real consultation. "We think Parliament should set a limit," he told Channel 4 News. "That is what happens in Australia. Mr Blair doesn't think there should be a limit." Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said Labour was right to reject the Tories' idea of quotas on asylum. But he warned about the dangers of a "bidding war" on the issue between the other two major parties. The UK Independence Party also wants a points system for economic migration but complains there are no limits on the number of EU workers coming to the UK.

Low skilled immigrants will no longer be able to settle in the UK under proposals unveiled by Home Secretary Charles Clarke. Only skilled workers will be allowed to stay in Britain and will have to speak English and pass a "Britishness test" in the same way as those applying for citizenship. The waiting period to settle in the UK will also increase from four years to five. And a points system will be developed making it easier for highly skilled immigrants to work in the country. Employers caught using illegal workers will face a new £2,000 fixed penalty fine for each case. Specific categories of migrants - such as those from certain countries - will also be required to hand the British government a financial bond which they will forfeit if they fail to return home. Controversially, Mr Clarke said he would end giving successful asylum seekers the right to stay in Britain permanently. Instead, they will be given temporary leave to remain, which will last up to five years.

Immigrants face £200 fee in the UK

Tony Blair is to launch an unprecedented immigration clampdown by charging some overseas workers up to £200 each to get their families into Britain. In a dramatic move before the general election, migrant workers will face a charge if they appeal against bans on their families joining them from overseas. Together with new measures to deport more failed asylum seekers, the move will form a key plank of Labour's campaign, it emerged today. A five-year plan for immigration is set to be published by the Home Office on Monday after winning final approval from the Cabinet. General election chief Alan Milburn admitted Labour's own private polling shows the public is "angry" at what it sees as abuse by migrants of the present system. Labour is determined to outflank the Tories on immigration, and the five-year plan will include new measures aimed at slashing the number of overseas entrants. At their heart is the proposal to impose a hefty fee on work-permit holders who challenge refusals to grant entry to their family members entry. The fee has yet to be settled but a figure of £200 is being discussed by ministers. The hope is that the charge would act as a deterrent to those who want to let their family members stay in the UK for years while mounting repeated appeals. "It is to deter hundreds and hundreds of appeals.

One of the reasons the system is so congested is you have thousands of people on appeal," a minister said. The number of foreignwork-permit holders has risen from 25,000 in 1995 to 60,000 in 2000. Last year, it soared to 145,000 as the Government struggled to find people to fill the skills gap. But many are allowed to bring their spouses and other relatives, swelling the immigration figures by many times, critics claim. A points-based system may also be introduced for work permits so that only those with the right skills to meet specific job vacancies are allowed in. The Tories have proposed a quota plan to impose an upper limit on the number of asylum seekers and immigrants allowed into the UK every year. The Conservatives want to restrict asylum to between 8,000 and 20,000 cases a year, because they say 80 per cent of current applications turn out to be bogus. Mr Blair claims that the Tory plan is unworkable because it would require a British government to withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees and even break European Union law. The Prime Minister has himself repeatedly expressed concern at the low number of deportations of failed asylum seekers, and the five-year plan is expected to include new moves to tackle the problem. Mr Blair says that it is "neither-extremist nor racist" to be worried about the issue. He has set a target that by the end of this year for the number of forced removals each month should exceed the number of new unfounded applications. At current rates, about 2,000 asylum requests are turned down each month while only 1,000 failed applicants are deported.

=============================================================

A SEED IS A SEED

King David in the Bible once said, if you are digging a hole, before you finish digging, you must fit yourself as you continue digging as you might end up in that hole. See the story below.

British backpackers make up the largest nationality of illegal workers in Australia. Why?

When British folk people think of illegal immigrants, they don't usually consider their own countrymen and women in that light. But figures from the Australian Immigration department reveal UK citizens are propping up their labour underworld. Among a total of 51,000 people who had overstayed their visas at June 2004, 5,500 were from the UK. The report says: "Many people who are recorded as overstayers are simply extending their stay in Australia by a few days or weeks, and leave of their own accord in a short period." There's a "huge culture" of working illegally, says Conor McCormick, 33, who spent two years doing just that after his working holiday visa expired in 1997. Enjoying himself too much to go back to his native Northern Ireland, he falsely declared himself a resident on his new tax form and continued doing agency work and a bar job. When his employers asked for his new visa, he just made excuses. "I was surprised how easy it was, it was so simple. What I did fooled everyone. I had become a resident and no-one questioned that at all." There were nervous moments, like being interviewed by police as witness to a fight in the pub or when friends of his were deported for staying illegally. And of course, when he finally decided to leave the country. A few days before his flight home, Conor declared himself to the Darwin authorities, who interviewed him 90 minutes. They then issued a new short-stay visa for Conor to leave the country and gave him a three-year ban. "The questioning was far from hostile, they gave me a cup of tea and asked me why I overstayed. I told them I had met someone, who is now my wife, and didn't want to go back. They asked me where I worked but never asked for names or addresses."

Too much fun

Eighteen months after leaving Australia, Conor returned, halfway through his ban. He says they let him in because he had applied for residency. Now he's an Australian citizen. Although his method for staying on even fooled the tax office, most illegal workers get paid in cash. Jane, now a 32-year-old teacher in the UK, was forced to leave Australia due to a bereavement, so by the time she returned, her working visa had expired and the authorities refused to extend it. "I got cash-in-hand jobs, in a restaurant, fast food, a sandwich shop. They didn't know I didn't have a working visa but they didn't ask either. "I knew not to go to the larger companies in the city centre, where they do check, so I went to the corner shops near where I lived. All the people I knew had working visas but my circumstances were different." The main reason for the number of illegal British workers is they're having far too much fun to leave, says Emily, a legitimate worker at a backpackers' hostel in Surfers Paradise, Queensland. "I've found that many backpackers visiting on tourist visas, especially those who like to drink, simply run out of money long before they're ready to go back home. "I also think many underestimate the scale of the country and the numerous places to see. Cost of travel is not cheap, even with backpacker or student discounts, and distances are great." For cash-in-hand workers, there's fruit-picking or labouring on farms, plus working as "glassies" in bars or waitressing, she says. "They don't offer great pay, but enough to live off and save a little. While cash-in-hand jobs are not openly promoted here, it's well known that they're available."

White faces

So what does this mean for Britain, cast in the unusual role of exporter of illegal workers? For a start, we could take this on board and see immigration in a different light, says Rhian Beynon of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. "This shows that international immigration is a very natural, normal and human process. People are moving around the globe for settlement, travel or work. Hopefully this makes people think differently about what typical immigrants are." We should also question whether it's easier for white immigrants, either in the UK or in Australia, to overstay, says Keith Best of the Immigration Advisory Service. The previous home secretary, David Blunkett, reformed a "racist" immigration policy which had favoured white immigrants since 1971, Mr Best says, and instead fairly based entry on economic and social need. But attitudes need to change as well as rules. "There's a legitimacy that comes with a white face and people tend not to question these people, but not if you're from Africa or the Indian subcontinent, where people wrongly regard second or third generations as immigrants." The Australian High Commission was unavailable to comment, but the report said British illegal workers are classed as "low risk" because they make up a small fraction of their total visas. Immigration is a huge issue in Australia, where the population has doubled in the last 50 years. It operates a carefully controlled migration system, based on a series of quotas - an idea adopted by the Conservatives in the UK.

=============================================================

Howard unveils Tory asylum plans in the UK

Tory plans to cut immigration to the UK are not racist and will make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees, Michael Howard has said. As his party set out detailed asylum reform plans, Mr Howard said they would help smash people smuggling gangs. There would be an annual limit on asylum and all claims would be processed overseas. Some charities say the plans would put refugees' lives at risk if they were turned away once quotas were filled. Tony Blair said Labour would set out workable plans for tackling immigration abuse in the next few weeks and attacked the Tory plans. "By cutting the number of front-line immigration staff at our borders, they will actually make the problem worse," said Mr Blair. Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said there needed to be a quick, fair and firm asylum system. But he said it was "absolutely disgusting" to propose a system which could turn away genuine refugees. The Conservatives say there is little risk of this happening as demand for asylum will be considered whether quotas are set. In a speech in London on Monday, Mr Howard said: "It's not racist, as some people to claim, to talk about controlling immigration far from it." He said that coming from an immigrant family himself he recognised that "firm but fair" immigration controls were essential for good community relations.

The Tories proposed a four-step asylum plan:

• Withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations Convention on refugees, which obliges countries to accept people being persecuted on the basis of need, not numbers
• Introduce laws to allow the immediate removal of asylum seekers whose claims were clearly unfounded because they came from safe countries or had destroyed documents
• Detain asylum seekers without documents so people whose identity was not known were not able to move freely around the UK - a worry for "national security"
• Stop considering asylum applications inside the UK and instead take people from United Nations refugee agency camps. Anyone applying for asylum would be taken to new centres close to their countries of origin.

The Tories also want quotas for those seeking work permits through an Australian-style points system and those wanting to join families in the UK. Mr Howard said nearly 160,000 people were settling in the UK every year - the size of a city like Peterborough. The plans would help achieve a "substantial reduction" in immigration, he said, although he could not predict a figure. He said that only two out of 10 asylum seekers had their claims accepted under the current "unfair and inhumane" system. "We need to break the link between arriving in Britain and claiming asylum," Mr Howard said. "By breaking that link we can smash the criminal gangs at the heart of the trade in people smuggling." But the UN refugees agency is worried the policy sends the wrong message to poorer countries which receive the bulk of refugees. Refugee Council Chief Executive Maeve Sherlock called the plans "dangerous, ill thought-out and hugely irresponsible". Lives could be put at risk if refugees were turned away once the quotas were filled, she warned. Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips said asylum applications were down 40% and economic migration down about 10%. He did not think Mr Howard intended to centre the debate about race. But he warned that some campaigners could use his words to hint the policy was about keeping out people of a different colour or culture. Mr Howard called that suggestion "disgraceful".

Getting married in the UK?

New rules from 1st February 2005

I encourage you all to have a look on the IND WEBSITE FOR FURTHER EXPLANATIONS/ ADDITIONS.

New rules for getting married in the United Kingdom: Questions & Answers

Press releases and announcements

New rules for getting married in the United Kingdom: Questions & Answers

A brief Introduction to the new rules

From 1 February 2005, people who are subject to immigration control who wish to marry in the United Kingdom (UK) will need to follow new procedures.
They must either:


Hold entry clearance* as a fiancé/e or marriage visitor, or
Hold a Home Office certificate of approval**, or
Be a person with settled status in the UK (e.g. indefinite leave to remain)

People who are subject to immigration control will also be required to give notice to marry to a registrar at one of a number of designated register offices throughout the UK. This is a brief summary of the new rules. This page will explain how they apply to you and what you must do.

These rules do not apply to anyone who has already given notice to marry to a registrar before 1 February 2005

Who is subject to immigration control?

All people who are not EEA nationals***, who require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are people subject to immigration control.

Who is not subject to immigration control?

You are not considered to be subject to immigration control if you are in one of the following categories:

You are a British citizen
You are an EEA national**
You have a certificate of entitlement demonstrating you have a right of abode in the UK in your passport.

There are some other people who are not subject to immigration control because of the work they do.

I am overseas. Will I still need entry clearance if I am only visiting the UK to get married?

Yes. You will need to have entry clearance as a marriage visitor. Without this, the registrar will not be able to take your notice of marriage. This condition applies even if you are from a country where you would not normally require a visa to come to the UK.

* Entry clearance is the granting of permission to enter the United Kingdom (UK), usually provided by the issue of a visa in your passport or travel document, by a British post outside the UK. Entry clearance should have been granted in your country of origin, or in the country overseas where you are normally resident.
The Home Office certificate of approval represents the written permission of the Secretary of State to marry in the United Kingdom. The need for this written permission was introduced in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004.
***An EEA national is a person from any country which is part of the European Community (EC), Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, or from Switzerland.

I am already in the UK. Do I qualify for a certificate of approval?

To qualify for the certificate of approval from the Home Office, you must have been granted leave to enter or leave to remain for more than six months from the date that you were admitted into the UK and three months of that leave must still remain.

Who does not qualify for a certificate of approval?

You will not qualify if:

you were granted six months or less leave to enter or remain in the UK since you were admitted on this occasion;
you have less than three months of that leave remaining;
you have no valid leave to remain in the UK

What should I do if I want to marry in the UK but I do not qualify for the certificate of approval?

If you do not qualify for a certificate of approval even though you are required to, you must return to your own country or the country in which you are normally resident and apply for entry clearance as a fiancé/e or a marriage visitor from a British post abroad.

Will I have to pay for a certificate of approval?

Yes. The current fee for a certificate of approval application is £135 for postal applications. This is used to cover the cost of processing and considering your application.

Everyone who makes an application must pay the fee. If you and the person you are planning to marry are both foreign nationals you will each have to make separate applications and pay separate fees.

How do I apply for a certificate of approval?

Applications for a certificate of approval can only be made by post. You should complete a Certificate of Approval (Marriage) application form to make a valid application.

The form is available from the IND website at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk. Alternatively, you can ask for an application form to be sent to you by telephoning 0870 241 0645.

When you have completed the application form, send it, together with the required documentation and details of your fee payment, to:

Initial Consideration Unit
Certificate of Approval (Marriage)
Immigration and Nationality Directorate
PO Box 3615,
Walsall Road,
Cannock
WS11 0WS

We strongly recommend that all applications should be sent by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery.

Applications for a Certificate of Approval for marriage will not be accepted by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Public Enquiry Offices at the present time.

How can I make the payment for my certificate of approval application?

We will accept a single payment only by cheque, bankers draft or credit/debit card. We cannot accept multiple payment methods, for example, part credit card and part cheque. We do not accept cash.

Credit and debit cards we accept include:

Visa/Electron
MasterCard
Delta
Switch/Maestro
Solo
JCB - Japanese Clearing Bank

Note: Please check with your credit card company or bank that you are authorised to make payments of this nature and that sufficient funds are available to you.

How long is the certificate of approval valid for?

The certificate of approval is valid:


For three months from the date it is issued; or
To the date when your leave to enter/remain expires, if this is less.

You must give notice of your intention to marry to a registrar at a designated register office within this time.

Will the certificate of approval allow me further leave to remain?

No. The certificate of approval is not a grant of further leave to remain in the UK. The certificate only allows you to give notice to marry to a registrar at a designated register office.

How long should I allow for my certificate of approval application to be processed?

Please make your application for the certificate of approval at least three months before your entry clearance or leave to remain is due to expire. This will allow time for the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate to consider your application and send your certificate to you. Processing your application can take between three and 13 weeks. 70% of applications are completed within three weeks. If you use the correct form, pay the correct fee, provide all the required documents and photographs, and sign and date the form, it will help us to process your application quickly.

Once you have given notice to marry to a registrar, there is a 15 day waiting period (14 days in Northern Ireland), before you are able to marry. During this time, your intention to marry is advertised publicly on the Register Office notice board. This is known as the waiting period.

Make sure you have enough valid leave in the UK left to allow you to remain in the UK until the date of your wedding.

Once I have my certificate of approval for marriage or appropriate entry clearance, where do I go to give notice to marry?

There are 76 designated register offices in England and Wales, where you can give notice to marry to a registrar with your certificate of approval. These are listed at the end of this page. Details can be found on the General Register Office website at www.gro.gov.uk.

The website also provides more information about giving notice to marry to a registrar and general information on getting married in England and Wales. More information about getting married in Scotland is available at www.gro-scotland.gov.uk and in Northern Ireland at www.groni.gov.uk

If you or the person you plan to marry live in a designated registration district in England or Wales, you will need to give notice at the register office of that district. If neither of you live in a designated registration district, then you may give notice at the register office of any designated district. There is a list of designated register offices at the end of this document. You will both need to attend the register office in person.

You can give notice to marry at any register office in Scotland or Northern Ireland, as all register offices will be designated offices. This is normally done by post.

Once you have given notice at a designated register office in England or Wales, your wedding can take place at any register office, or approved premises in England and Wales, or at any registered religious building in your district(s) of residence (apart from an Anglican Church).

What will happen if I don't get a certificate of approval?

If you do not get a certificate of approval and you are subject to immigration control the registrar will not be able to take your notice of marriage.

What will happen when we give notice to marry to a registrar?

In England and Wales both you and you fiancé/e will be required to attend together to give your notices of marriage in person. When you give your notice of marriage, you should take your certificate of approval with you, as well as evidence of your names and surnames, ages, addresses and nationalities and proof of your marital status, if either of you have been married before.

You must surrender your certificate of approval to the registrar when giving notice of marriage.

The notice to marry is valid for one year from the date of issue in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for three months in Scotland. Your marriage must take place within this time, or you will have to apply for another certificate of approval and give notice to marry again.

Can I apply for more than one certificate of approval?

You can only apply for a second Certificate of Approval if:


The original certificate of approval is no longer valid and evidence is provided to show why the marriage did not take place within three months
If the relationship with the person you originally intended to marry has ended and you now wish to marry a different person

A replacement Certificate of Approval will not be re-issued if you lose the original. You will have to make a new application.

What if I or my fiancé(e) are under the age of 16 or between the ages of 16 and 18 and we want to get married?

No valid marriage can take place in the United Kingdom if one of the partners is aged under 16. Consent to marry from a parent or guardian may be required if you are aged 16 or 17. You should contact the registrar's office where you intend to give notice of your marriage for further details.

You will not qualify for leave to remain solely on the basis of marriage if either party to your marriage is under 18. This includes applications for leave to remain where the sponsor is only here in a temporary capacity.

I plan to have a church wedding/religious ceremony. Do I need to apply for a certificate of approval for marriage?

If you plan to get married at an Anglican Church, you do not require a certificate of approval. You must contact a member of the clergy at the church where you plan to get married to make the appropriate arrangements.

If you plan to marry in any other form of religious ceremony, you must obtain a certificate of approval first and give notice to marry to a registrar at a designated register office, before the marriage ceremony can take place.

Can I apply for further leave to remain once I have given notice to marry to a registrar?

Yes. However, you cannot apply for leave to remain as a spouse until you are actually married.

You may apply for leave to remain in another category once you have been issued with a certificate of approval, but you must be sure that you qualify for leave in that category before applying. You will not necessarily be granted leave to remain because your leave is running out and you are waiting for your wedding day, even if you had a certificate of approval when you gave notice to marry to a registrar. It is your responsibility to make sure that you have enough valid leave in the UK to cover the following periods:


applying for and receiving your certificate of approval for marriage;
giving notice to marry to a registrar and allowing for the 15 day waiting period (14 days in Northern Ireland);
for any additional time between the end of the waiting period and your wedding day

My fiancé/e and I are both foreign nationals who currently have leave to enter/remain in visa categories other than fiancé/e, or visitor for the purpose of marriage. Do we require a certificate of approval for marriage?

Yes. You will both have to make individual applications for certificate of approval for marriage. All foreign nationals who wish to marry in the UK who do not have the correct entry clearance to do so, must obtain a certificate of approval. This is the same, whether or not you intend to settle in the United Kingdom after the marriage.

For example: two American nationals with leave to remain as students, who want to get married in the UK, would both need to apply for a certificates of approval in order to give notice to marry in the UK to a registrar. This is the case, even though the marriage would not allow either of them to qualify for settlement in the UK. MORE

Labour promises to build new estates
By Joe Murphy
24 January 2005

Plans to give thousands of families a first step up the housing ladder are being unveiled today. New estates of starter homes will be offered to low-income workers on a part-buy, part-rent basis. More controversially, the Government will signal new planning laws to squeeze more homes on to land in London and the South-East.

The laws will restrict developments which are not dense enough - banning developers from "wasting" scarce land by building too many executive homes with large gardens and big gaps between properties. The proposals, which will be a key part of Labour's general election campaign, were being announced by John Prescott as part of his five-year plan for housing. At its centre is expected to be a plan to build new first-time buyers' estates using surplus government land, such as obsolete London hospital sites. In a radical new idea, the state will continue to own the land but homes built on it will be sold to people priced out of the regular housing market.

Owner-tenants will be able to cash in on rising property prices if they sell and move on.

Unusually, they will not be charged ground rent to begin with. After a few years they will have to pay a monthly levy that will grow over time.

The levy would recoup some cash when families have had a chance to settle, and encourage them to move if they can afford to go into the regular housing market, freeing the home for a new first-time buyer.

In a second initiative, tenants of councils and housing associations will be able to buy a part-share in their property while continuing to pay rent.

Unlike the Conservative plan to let families buy their rented homes outright, the Deputy Prime Minister is insisting they must sell back to the council or housing association if they move. His thinking is that if house prices rise, families who sell will make enough profit for a deposit on a private house, and the social housing stock will not be broken up.

The scheme will only be introduced where landlords agree to it. One variation being considered would allow people to gradually build up a share of equity in their home simply by paying slightly more rent.

Mr Prescott will next month unveil designs for a basic starter home that could cost only ?60,000 each to build, in an effort to relieve the acute shortage of affordable housing in the Home Counties.

Labour is anxious to escape its image of being hostile to private home ownership. It was reported at the weekend that Gordon Brown may cut stamp duty for first-time buyers in his pre-election Budget. Mr Prescott is said to have defied pressure from No 10 to allow housing association tenants a full right to buy their homes.

The Tories are promising a Bill in the Commons for a right to buy and challenged Labour to back it. Shadow housing minister John Hayes said Labour plans were too little too late.

He said: "Many people are in a far worse position now than in 1997. The Government has slashed right-to-buy discounts, frozen stamp duty thresholds, and been responsible for council tax hikes of 70 per cent."

 

Blunkett launches ID cards bill in UK

29th November, 2004

ID cards will mean people have to give the state less information about themselves, Home Secretary David Blunkett has said. Launching the Identity Cards Bill, Mr Blunkett said 80% of the public were behind the proposal and it was sad many politicians did not understand them. Tony Blair said ID cards would "protect rather than erode civil liberties". Lib Dems have vowed to stop the plans, which they regard as "deeply flawed". The Tories expressed some misgivings. If the cards are introduced, they would be the first national ID since the Second World War ones ended half a century ago.

'Tackling fear'

The Home Office has said people will pay either £35 for a stand-alone ID card or £85 for a passport and ID card together. The first cards would be issued in 2008 and Mr Blunkett has suggested it could be decided in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own the cards, although not to carry them. The home secretary, who is facing claims about his private life, said the plans were part of a package to tackle people's fears about crime and security, both real and "subliminal". "Know your true identity and being able to demonstrate it is a positive plus and is a basic human right which all of us should treasure."

Further safeguards?

Ministers say the cards can help tackle terrorism, make national borders more secure, and prevent abuse of benefits and public services. Mr Blunkett said he was ready to consider further safeguards for the scheme. And rather than requiring more information from people, he said the cards would ensure a "less intrusive" way of collecting details than the national census. But Labour MP Glenda Jackson said most of her constituents opposed the idea as she questioned the cost of checking ID cards.

Non person?

Shadow home secretary David Davis said he would not have countenanced ID cards before the 11 September attacks but would do so now, even if they were not a panacea against terrorism. The Conservatives would only back the scheme if it met five tests, including its effect on civil liberties and whether the Home Office was capable of making it work, he said. He questioned the cost of the cards, put by the government at £3bn. Lib Dem spokesman Mark Oaten said Home Office figures showed 277,421 passports were lost or stolen between 8 December last year and mid-November this year. He added: "The cost and inconvenience of losing your ID card will be much worse - you will effectively be a non-person until the card is replaced. "Labour's ID Cards Bill is deeply flawed and must be stopped."

'No silver bullet'

Civil liberties groups complain the cards will compromise fundamental individual freedoms. But at his monthly news conference, Mr Blair said the cards were not a "silver bullet" to prevent terrorist attacks but nor did they produce "Big Brother" government. "They will help protect civil liberties, not erode them, because people will be able to produce their own identification," he said. "I simply point out that without proper security then there can be no opportunity."

Safeguards

Mr Blair told reporters there would be tough penalties for anybody misusing the database for the cards. Anybody convicted of tampering with the database would face up to 10 years in jail, he said. And anyone involved in administering the scheme who improperly disclosed information from the database could be jailed for up to two years. Under the plans, a national database would be created holding personal information such as names, addresses, and biometric information for all those who are issued with a card.

Independent watchdog?

Biometrics include fingerprints, facial scans and iris scans, all of which are unique to each individual. The bill would ensure that access to "specified public services" would be linked to production of a valid ID card and it will include penalties for those failing to register. It would also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents. Mr Blunkett has already promised to allow the whole scheme to be overseen by a new independent watchdog.

The home office in the UK has extended the

family asylum amnesty to 24th October, 2003

The home office in the UK has extended the family asylum amnesty to 24th October, 2003. This is only to those who applied for asylum in the UK before 2nd October, 2000 and not after after.. Previously it was announced that it covered only the families with dependants under 18 years who were in the UK by 2nd October 2000. The home office minister Des Browne announced on Monday 30th August 2004 that the amnesty project is coming to close by 31st December, 2004 and it now covers those who applied for asylum before 2nd October, 2000 with dependents under 18 years up to to 24th October, 2003. The children born by these group falls within the category. The basic criteria of the concession which was announced covers:

1.    Applicant must have applied for asylum before 2nd October 2000

2.    The applicant had at least one dependant aged under 18 (other than  a spouse) in the UK on 2nd October 2000 or 24th October 2003

3.    The applicant or any dependant do not have a criminal record or present a security risk.

 

Those persons who were granted exceptional leave to remain and their leave has already expired and the Home office has not replied wanafahamishwa hata hao wajaze fomu.  Those who have received letters form the Home office have had their applications refused on the basis that Kenya is under new government and it does not pose any threat. Hence they have been given up to December 2004 to return voluntarily to Kenya. It is best for them to apply under the concession especially those who have families because if December comes and they have not made the application they will not have any more chance.

Some solicitors are charging as much much as £1,000 while others like Ealing Solicitors Chambers are charging £250. This is for the application and follow up and representations to the Home Office. They do not charge to open files.

Contact

EALING SOLICITORS CHAMBERS

5 THE MALL  - LONDON W5 2J

TEL: 02085677784 - FAX 0208 5677764

OR

Mr. Blessing, Trocoll House (4th Floor), Wakering Road, Barking,

Essex, IG11 8PD on Tel: 0208 594 0010 or Mobile 07793051593. (Charges the same as above £250).

DID U COME TO UK AND CLAIMED ASYLUM B4 OCTOBER 2000 AND HAD DEPENDANT UNDER THE GE OF 18 BEFORE OCTOBER 2000 AND 24TH OCTOBER 2003. THEN YU HAVE UNTIL 31ST DECEMBER 2004 TO MAKE YOUR SUBMISSIONS TO THE HOME OFFICE. FOR THOSE WHO HAD 4 YEARS EXCEPTIONAL LEAVER AND HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE HOME OFFICE AND HAVE CHILDREN THEN IT IS BEST IF YOU DO THE SAME COZ KENYA IS NOW SAFE AND YOU MIGHT BE TOLD TO RETURN.

ITS BEST TO SEE YOUR SOLICITORS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

If you fall under the family asylum amnesty which was announced last year by home office and you have not heard anything from home office up to to now. You are advised to apply through your solicitors before 31st December, 2004 as the scheme is coming to a close according to home office minister Des Browne. The forms are available at solicitors offices. If you don't know who to contact you can contact 02085677784 or 07793051593.

GET IT RIGHT - It is only those families who had applied for asylum in the UK before 2nd October, 2000 who are eligible for the amnesty. If you you single by the time you  applied and now you have married or you have given birth by 24th October, 2003 then you are eligible. If you applied after 2nd October, 2000 you are not eligible even if you have dependants. Remember if you have married you have to show the documents when applying. It is strange that most of the people who have contact their solicitors have been told by their solicitors that they are not aware. You can change your solicitor as when the deadline come it does not matter whether your solicitor is aware or not.

The British High Commission has issued new guidelines to those seeking visas to travel to the UK. Under the new rules, Kenyan applicants will now have to apply in person. The commission in a press release said all applicants will have an electronic impression of their fingerprints taken at the offices of visa handling services limited. The release said the move is part of a worldwide programme to combat abuse of the UK’s immigration and asylum systems. Children under the age of five, holders of diplomatic and official passports would be exempted. Additional offices for visa applications and finger printing services have been opened in Mombasa and Kisumu.

 

Asylum applications in the UK 'down by 13%'

The number of new asylum applications has fallen by 13% to 9,210 in the second quarter of 2004, Home Office figures show.  Ministers believe it may be due to tougher border controls enforced in Calais under an Anglo-French agreement.  UK officers can check documents of passengers travelling to the UK and check for stowaways inside vehicles.  Separate figures showed the number of immigrants allowed to settle in the UK rose by 20% in 2003 to 139,675 people.  Provisional data for April, May and June suggests asylum applications, excluding dependants such as spouses and children, also dropped by 11% to 7,920.  The number of failed asylum seekers being deported from the UK was also down, with 3,725 including dependants removed from the UK.  But Tory home affairs spokesman Humfrey Malins told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "This government has had a chaotic and shambolic policy for the last few years. They are hopelessly inefficient.  "If there are fewer asylum applications in the last quarter, most people believe that that could mean greater numbers of people are still entering the country illegally, because our borders are not secure, and simply not bothering to claim asylum." That attack prompted Immigration Minister Des Browne to suggest the Tories were happy to rely on the figures only while they showed an increase in asylum applications even thought they were "prepared in exactly the same way by exactly the same officials".

For the Liberal Democrats, Mark Oaten criticised the government's whole approach to asylum. "I think that having a target or being obsessed by numbers is just the wrong way to look at this," he told the Today programme. "For example, I would actually welcome in some circumstances an increase in asylum applications.

"If there was a disaster in Somalia or Iraq, surely we would want to see an increase because it would mean that we were taking people who were fleeing persecution.  "So having this kind of fall may be absolutely meaningless because it could actually be a result of poor information, bad decisions being taken." Keith Best of the Immigration Advisory Service accused the government of having a "blunderbuss approach" to asylum that in some cases had made applicants destitute.  Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch UK said it was "yet another spin operation" by the government and argued the fall in asylum applications to the UK was less than that in the EU generally.

"Immigration figures issued today show a sharp increase in settlement of 20% in 2003 compared to 2002. Grants for settlement are now at their highest recorded level at 140,000 in 2003 - more than double the 1997 figure of 59,000," he added.

Peak in 2002?

On Tuesday, the Home Office released figures on the second quarter of this year and finalised annual statistics for 2003.

Previously released figures had shown that in the first three months of 2004, applications were down 20% on the last quarter of 2003.

Initial figures for 2003 indicate that asylum applications excluding dependants fell 41% to 49,370 on the previous year.

The peak in the number of asylum seekers was reached in the fourth quarter of 2002, when more than 22,000 people applied.

A cause for celebration?

But critics say the number of deported asylum seekers should be taken into consideration, and that others might be working illegally in the UK.

Habib Rahman, the chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said that asylum seekers might be driven underground by the UK's "increasingly harsh asylum system", which entails detentions and forcible deportations.

"The fact that millions of people worldwide continue to suffer under repressive regimes, yet do not claim asylum in the UK, is not necessarily a cause for celebration," Mr Rahman said.

"Any fall in asylum applications in the UK would reflect an overall trend among the world's 29 industrialised nations.

"International humanitarian initiatives, to which the UK has contributed, have helped that reduction."

 

 

 

ID card plans 'badly thought out' in the UK

Plans for introducing ID cards in the UK are poorly thought out and vital details are still unclear, say MPs.

The Commons home affairs committee says ID cards should go ahead and can help fight organised crime and terrorism.

But it criticises a "lack of clarity" over how the scheme will work in practice, with too much information kept secret by ministers.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said the plans were "incoherent, ill thought through" and 10 years from realisation.

Changed relationship

The first ID cards carrying biometric data, such as fingerprints and iris scans, will appear in 2007 and the Home Office wants them made compulsory by 2013.

The official committee report says ID cards can make a significant contribution to fighting crime and coordinating access to public services.

ID cards will bring enormous benefits to us as individuals and as a society   David Blunkett Home Secretary Committee report in full (794KB) Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download and install the reader here

The scheme will change the relationship between citizens and the state, but potential benefits outweigh such concerns, it says.

"However, the introduction of identity cards carries clear risks, both for individuals and for the successful implementation of the scheme," it continues.

On several counts, the MPs say the proposals of the "unprecedented" scheme are unclear.

'Too wide'

More details are needed, for example, on how many card readers and biometric readers will be needed to check ID cards or how much they will cost, they argue.

The committee also complains the draft legislation "goes far wider than is necessary to introduce a simple system to establish and demonstrate identity".

They back civil liberties campaigners' fears about how many people will be able to access personal details on the ID register without the person concerned knowing.

BIOMETRICS OPTIONS Facial scanning: A camera with appropriate software records face contours and converts them into code. A computer processes the data and checks against stored record. Iris imaging: Software scans a digital image of the iris to compare its unique pattern with all those stored. Fingerprinting: A scanner reads the ridge patterns and compares the converted code with those on a database.   Blunkett urged to shelve ID cards

Two MPs on the committee, Labour's David Winnick and Liberal Democrat Bob Russell, voted to reject ID cards on principle.

Mr Russell said the unknown cost of the scheme, which could be "several billions", would be better spent on police recruitment and surveillance.

Information Commissioner Richard Thomas told BBC Radio 4's Today programme his main concern was with the national register behind the cards, and the personal information on it.

Too many bodies, such as Inland Revenue, had access to this information, but the draft bill took away the individual's right to see it, he said.

He said: "We want to see very precisely on the face of the bill what these cards are going to be used for and we're pleased the committee has asked for the same approach."

Confidential

Committee chairman John Denham said the ID scheme should go ahead but ministers had to take serious note of the MPs' criticisms.

He told Today the main worry was that key decisions about the scheme's design may be taken by the private companies working with the government, rather than in a transparent way.

"With an open procurement process, with proper public and technical scrutiny, we can make sure this project goes right and we need it to work," he said.

There may be an argument for an ID Card but it has to be done very carefully to deliver the outcome we want in a cost-effective manner   David Davis Shadow home secretary

But Home Secretary David Blunkett said the desire for more information had to be balanced against getting best value by keeping market-sensitive details of contracts confidential.

Mr Blunkett said the government was at the early stages of an ambitious project and welcomed constructive discussion of the plans.

"ID cards will bring enormous benefits to us as individuals and as a society," said Mr Blunkett, who was pleased the MPs believed it was possible to deliver the scheme on time and to cost.

For the Tories Mr Davis said the plans could end up being "fatally flawed".

The government had never said whether the cards were for fighting terrorism, illegal immigration or benefit fraud, he told Today.

'Disaster'

"There may be an argument for an ID Card but it has to be done very carefully to deliver the outcome we want in a cost-effective manner," Mr Davis said.

An idea with such a potential impact on civil liberties should not be left to a Home Office civil servant to decide, it must be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny, he added.

Owen Blacker, from internet privacy group Stand, warned the cards threatened personal privacy and could be a "technological disaster".

Airport to run eye scans

A million foreign visitors will undergo hi-tech identity checks at British airports in an experiment announced by the Government today. Volunteers will have their irises scanned and details stored by the Immigration Service. Every time they enter Britain their identities will be checked. Ministers claim the system, to be installed next year at five airports including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, will increase security by providing "watertight" proof of identity. The volunteers will be people from non-EU countries who live in Britain or visit often. They will benefit by avoiding long queues at immigration desks. A recruitment drive will begin at the end of the year and the Home Office expects more than a million people to be taking part by 2010. Scanners could one day be used to confirm the identity of Britons entering the country, once passports are adapted to carry biometric data.

 

Failed asylum seekers 'must work'

Failed asylum seekers will have to do community work to qualify for food and homes under Home Office plans. David Blunkett warned of "problems" on the streets with groups of destitute people unless such action is taken. The home secretary also plans to restrict access to council housing to stop people returning to London from the "dispersal" areas they are sent to. The Tories branded the plans "panic measures" rushed out by a government "with one eye on the local elections".

'Perfect sense'

The proposals are in ministers' changes to the Asylum and Immigration Bill to be published on Wednesday. Mr Blunkett said something had to be done about failed asylum seekers "with no visible means of support," who were congregating on the streets of some UK towns.

He said it "made perfect sense" to give them an opportunity to work for "basic subsistence".

"That is something for something, in the same way we are doing with our welfare to work programme," Mr Blunkett told the BBC.

The measures would apply to people who have been turned down for political asylum but who cannot immediately return to their country because it is deemed too dangerous.

'Paid work'

But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten accused Mr Blunkett of treating innocent people like criminals.

"Community service is for people who have committed crimes, not for people who have failed in their asylum claim.

"If individuals cannot be deported through no fault of their own they should be allowed to do paid work.

"If the government really wants to reduce the benefits bill they should allow all asylum seekers to work for a decent wage while their applications are pending," said Mr Oaten.

Mr Blunkett is also expected to unveil a clampdown on bogus marriages, with non-EU nationals having to prove they are in the UK lawfully before getting wed.

Back payments of income support will also be scrapped and replaced by a "refugee integration loan" based on need, in the amendments, to be tabled on Wednesday.

Currently those who are granted asylum get refugee status and can then claim back-payments of income support.

Failed applicants

One proposal likely to prove controversial is efforts to restrict asylum seekers to specific areas of the country by controlling access to council housing.

Refugees will only be allowed to settle in dispersal areas - in other words where they are sent.

Currently, many asylum seekers are placed in towns and cities across the UK but gravitate back to London and South East of England.

Under this measure, they will lose their rights to housing if they move out of an allocated area.

Defending the proposals, Mr Blunkett said: "People who have been granted refugee status, citizenship or are being supported by the taxpayer must recognise that with these rights come responsibilities and support to those unable to return must be dependent on them giving something back to the community."

'Shambolic approach'

Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis said the measures were a response to Labour's incompetent management of the asylum system.

"We welcome the fact they at last seem to be taking the problem seriously, and some of these measures may make sense," said Mr Davis.

"However, announcing hastily drawn up measures at the last minute hardly inspires confidence.

"This is entirely characteristic of Labour's incompetent and shambolic approach to asylum and immigration issues."

On Monday, peers rejected government plans to limit to five days the time failed applicants have to appeal to the new asylum and immigration tribunal.

The House of Lords voted by 143 to 94 to back a Lib Dem amendment which doubled the appeal period to 10 days.

The government is now considering whether to try to overturn the changes.

Watchdog's 'alarm' over ID cards

Plans for a national ID card scheme risk changing the relationship between the British state and its citizens, the information watchdog has warned.  Richard Thomas said he had initially greeted the plans with "healthy scepticism" but the details had changed his view to "increasing alarm".  The government hopes a pilot scheme will pave the way for compulsory identity cards within the next decade.  Mr Thomas told MPs the scheme was "unprecedented" in international terms.

Trials

The information commissioner's warning came as part of the Commons home affairs select committee's inquiry into the draft legislation on identity cards.

Mr Thomas was essentially delivering a preview of his formal critique of the law plans, which he hopes to give to ministers in mid-July.

His comments will come as a blow to Home Secretary David Blunkett, who has faced opposition over the idea of compulsory cards inside the cabinet from ministers such as Jack Straw and Patricia Hewitt.

BBC political editor Andrew Marr said Mr Thomas had used strong language which ministers could not just brush aside.

But the home secretary's spokesman accused Mr Thomas of "a bit of grandstanding".

The commissioner keeps checks on the UK's data protection and freedom of information laws.

He said he was not opposed to identity cards in principle.

But he was worried the British plans were more comprehensive and ambitious than any other scheme in the world.

Creeping powers

Mr Thomas told the MPs: "This is beginning to represent a really significant sea change in the relationship between state and every individual in this country."

It was now clear the scheme was not just about identity cards but about a national identity register, he said.

"It is not just about citizens having a piece of plastic to identify themselves.

"It's about the amount, the nature of the information held about every citizen and how that's going to be used in a wide range of activities."

The government had addressed worries of "function creep" - the plans going further than initially envisaged - in terms of the information held about people.

But there were still concerns the plans were too "open ended" about how the information could be shared between different agencies.

Criminal attraction?

Last month, 10,000 volunteers started trialling the cards, which will include biometric details such as iris scans, fingerprints or facial dimensions.

From 2007 all new passports and driving licences will include biometric data and there will be separate identity cards for those who do not drive or have passports.

By 2012, it is estimated that 80% of workers will have the card or a combined driving licence or passport.

The Home Office hopes the scheme will be compulsory by 2013.

Mr Thomas questioned whether the so-called voluntary stage was truly voluntary because people applying for driving licences and passports would have no choice but to have the biometric cards.

The government hopes the scheme will provide a "gold standard" of identity and be a key tool in the fight against organised crime and illegal immigration.

'Pressing ahead'

But Mr Thomas said that if the ID cards did work out as the government planned they would be "a very, very attractive proposition for criminals".

He also warned that theft of cards or errors on the database could cause problems like people being denied access to public services or even loss of livelihoods.

Mr Blunkett's spokesman said the commission had not raised any of the issues with the home secretary directly, despite consultations.

"The information commissioner is responsible for data protection, but the government has a much wider responsibility to balance civil liberties with ensuring our security against terrorism, immigration fraud and organised crime.

"A modern ID card is an essential part preparing Britain for the 21st century and we will be pressing ahead with our plans."

 

Asylum numbers 'mostly reliable'

The National Audit Office says asylum figures are "in most respects reliable" after a probe into claims figures were massaged by relaxing immigration rules.  It says there is "no clear statistical evidence" that asylum was cut at the expense of other forms of migration.  But it points to "several weaknesses" in how the figures are compiled and says some statistics are "misleading".  Meanwhile, new Home Office figures show asylum claims fell by a fifth to 10,585 in the first three months of the year.

'No data'

Conservative home affairs spokesman David Davis said the NAO had stated some of the figures provided by the government on asylum seekers were "misleading" and described the report as a "whitewash".

"To this day, we still don't know how many people are in this country, and we still don't know how many of them are here illegally," he said.

"If there is no data on illegal immigrants, how can the government claim to have the asylum system under control?"

The review was launched after Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes quit after allegations of a visa scam involving business immigration applications from Romania and Bulgaria.

'Real progress'

At his monthly news conference, Tony Blair said the report showed progress on cutting asylum figures "is real".

He promised to act on the NAO's recommendations for improvements.

But pointing to the new statistics for this year, he said: "These asylum figures show that the dramatic progress that we made last year when we halved the number of asylum applications has continued."

Auditor general Sir John Bourn concluded: "The asylum data and statistics are in most respects reliable, including the Home Office's reporting that the number of asylum applications halved between October 2002 and September 2003."

Research for the NAO said there was no statistical evidence that some people who might previously have claimed asylum instead came to Britain through other legal migration routes, such as work permits.

There may have been some diversion of Polish nationals onto the scheme for seasonal farm workers but there could be many reasons for this change, it says.

The NAO points to "several weaknesses" in the way the Home Office compiles and presents the figures. Those include:

• The way the number of claims for benefits for asylum seekers is presented is "materially misleading", because they "omit some of those receiving support and include others who should not".
• Support for some asylum seekers continues after it is meant to have stopped in what the NAO calls a "waste of public resources".
•  
• Some illegal immigrants told to apply for asylum may go missing from the records.

Keith Holden, co-author of the NAO report, said the figures needed to be presented more clearly.

The Home Office had made a "marked improvement" in its case database but there were a number of weaknesses.  Mr Holden said statistics for claims to the National Asylum Support Service were "presented in a way that is very factual but they are not a particularly easy set of statistics for a general user to understand".

He said the Home Office provided all the figures for those receiving benefits in the asylum process - but the way they were presented meant that 17,000 cases were not obviously apparent to those reading the figures.

Removal questions

On illegal migration, Mr Holden said: "There's an absence of data, it's not possible to assess where people have decided to claim asylum or enter through other routes."

The NAO wanted the government to improve its record of removals, he said. In 6% of the cases they examined, there was no evidence that the removal had taken place.

"We're not saying that the removal didn't happen, they just have not had the evidence in the case to say they had been removed," he added.

The National Audit Office also said the Home Office should do more to help the public understand how many asylum claims are ultimately deemed genuine or unfounded.

The Tories have said the NAO inquiry falls short of the full independent investigation they want.

Meanwhile the latest asylum figures, for the first quarter of 2004, showed applications - including dependants such as children and spouses - down to 10,585 from 13,150 in October to December 2003.

While 12% of applicants are being accepted as having a case, the Home Office is now losing more than a fifth of appeals, continuing a year-long upward trend.

The number of failed asylum seekers who were removed from the UK in the first three months of this year rose 1% to 3,320, a 27% increase on the same period last year. Including dependants, the number of people removed was 4,085.

The number of people applying for British citizenship rose by 21% to 139,315 during 2003.

A Home Office spokeswoman said the number of cases awaiting initial decisions was now at its lowest for a decade at 18,100.

 

 

EU asylum seekers lose support

The Home Office is ending support for 2,500 asylum seekers this weekend and has told them to leave their homes because they are from new EU states.  The High Court has urged a guarantee of temporary support to prevent a deluge of legal challenges.  Refugee agencies are already predicting chaos for councils, homelessness and a potential race relations backlash.  The Home Office says it will hear late claims for help, but says it has given enough notice.  Most asylum seekers are housed by a national system which disperses them around the country while their cases are assessed.  Under the new rules, some 2,500 asylum seekers and their dependents from new European Union members are no longer eligible for support. They can still pursue their asylum claim - but the official presumption is that their countries are now safe.  From 1 May they have the same rights as other members of the EU - but until now they have been banned from seeking work and supporting themselves.

Home Office letter

In letters sent out on 5 April, the Home Office told asylum seekers from the accession states they must vacate their homes by 1 May. The group most affected by the decision are Roma, a large number with families, who have fled the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland alleging persecution.

Kent County Council, one of the areas affected, has proposed transitional arrangements which the government rejected.

Dozens of agencies and local councils are discussing how to prevent problems caused by the withdrawal of support. The Local Government Association has written to the Home Office appealing for a change in benefit rules.

Maeve Sherlock, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the Home Office was about to create a crisis out of nothing.

The agency warns that unless the Home Office gives those affected longer to put their affairs in order, there may be a race relations backlash if people are forced on to the streets.

"There is a crisis brewing which is wholly avoidable," she said. "It is totally unrealistic to expect asylum seekers to find work and housing overnight, not to mention trying to do this on a bank holiday."

"Many families including those with young children will find themselves homeless.

"Would it really hurt to let these families stay in their homes for a few more weeks while the adults find a job?"

High Court hearing

In the High Court on Thursday, Mr Justice Collins warned there could be an "intolerable burden" of publicly-funded legal challenges if government did not guarantee accommodation.

The court later heard that officials would consider appeals for support on human rights grounds ahead of test cases next week - but there would be no guarantee of continued accommodation.

Asylum groups are now urging the 2,571 affected applicants to make submissions to prevent a loss of benefits.

But Richard Dunstan of the Citizens Advice Bureaux dismissed the court assurances as a "last minute fudge" which would not prevent evictions.

The organisaton had already written to Home Secretary David Blunkett calling for an amnesty and transitional arrangements to save the taxpayer a homelessness bill.

"These [assurances] are not adequate at all," said Mr Dunstan. "Only those who may contact with local authorities or others will be aware they can make representations. But many will fall through the gap.

"The information we have received from areas such as Liberpool, Manchester and Birmingham is that landlords will evict. They have a business to run and you can understand that."

A spokesman for the Home Office said: "The situation is that as of 1 May any support they were receiving, quite rightly, will end as they will cease to be eligible."

"They will have three choices. The first is to go home or leave for another EU country. The second is to register as workers under the scheme for new member states. The third is that if they remain in the UK they must be self-supporting. Those are the options."

The spokesman denied the change in policy would create chaos and leave families on the streets.

"We have done everything that has been expected of us," he said. "Local authorities have powers to provide temporary accommodation for families in extreme circumstances.

"There may be cases where we have to provide support to prevent breaches of the Human Rights Act - but these will be minimal."

 

 

Tony Blair has ordered a "top-to-bottom" review of the immigration system just days before the biggest enlargement in the EU's history. He told business leaders that new restrictions on the right to welfare benefits would help tackle abuses, especially after EU expansion. But Tory leader Michael Howard accused the PM of acting in a "blind panic". "You could not have a better example of how the government has let us down than on immigration," he said.In his speech to the CBI conference in London, Mr Blair insisted that migrants from eastern Europe who do not work will not have access to council houses and will be prevented from "benefit-shopping." With 10 new states joining the EU on 1 May - increasing its numbers to 25 - Mr Blair said the UK would be neither "fortress" nor "open door".He told business leaders: "Migrants will not be able to access social housing unless they are here legally and are working. "No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged European Union simply to claim benefits or housing. "There won't be support for the economically inactive. The same goes for migrants from elsewhere in the world... they must be self-sufficient." People who argued migration is out of control, or that the UK is taking more people than other countries were "simply wrong", he said. Migrants made a "huge contribution" to the British economy and public services would be "close to collapse" without them, he said.

Restrictions will apply to all countries in the European Community Association Agreement, which includes the 10 new EU states such as Lithuania and the Czech Republic but also other hopeful nations like Romania and Bulgaria. Mr Blair said quotas for low-skilled workers getting work permits to enter the agricultural, hospitality or food processing sectors would be reduced. Currently there are 25,000 places on the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, with many of those filling them coming from countries about to join the EU. Mr Blair said concerns over migration could not just be dismissed as racism, and that a "top-to-bottom" look at the system was necessary. "There are real, not imagined abuses of the system, that lead to a genuine sense of unfairness. "They can accept migration that is controlled and selective.... but they will not accept abuse and absurdity. "All who come to work and study must be able to support themselves." Mr Blair said immigration had "suddenly become very high on the agenda" of local communities and he urged sensitivity in the handling of the issue. "We need few reminders about what happens when the politics of immigration gets out of hand," he told the conference. However, shadow home secretary David Davis accused Mr Blair of a "panicky response to a problem which has been long in creation". "This is a desperate attempt to try to recover the initiative on an area of policy which has been a complete shambles from beginning to end," he told BBC Radio 4's the World At One. But Work and Pensions Secretary Andrew Smith rejected the charge, saying the prime Minister was using a "commonsense approach which is good for Britain". "It will boost the economy whilst getting across the message loud and clear that we are not a soft touch for people who want to fiddle the benefits system. They won't be able to." Earlier, European commissioner and former Labour leader Neil Kinnock claimed there would be no influx of European migrants - but argued some restrictions were justified.

 

ID cards 'will aid terror fight'

Home Secretary David Blunkett has defended his proposal for a national ID card scheme, saying it could be effective in fighting terrorism.  Draft legislation outlining the plans will be published on Monday and a pilot trial is due to begin this week. Civil rights groups say it is a "myth" the cards will prevent terror attacks.  But Mr Blunkett told the BBC: "This isn't some sort of fetish. This is about recognising the massive change that's taken place in the world."  Speaking on BBC One's Breakfast With Frost programme, he said the programme would begin voluntarily before expanding to cover the population as a whole. "Within three years we will be in a position to start everyone having a biometric passport issued and along with it a biometric card." This would include specific identifiers like iris scans, finger prints or facial recognition.  "Within seven years we'd start to move towards a position... where people generally across the whole population, have got an ID card," he said.  "At that point, we've agreed that we'll present a report to parliament on how it's working, the objectives of compulsion and at that point we'll have a vote."  Mr Blunkett said the cards would stop terrorists from using multiple identities, which would help prevent attacks.  "People said to me you couldn't stop the World Trade Centre attacks, you couldn't stop the Madrid bombing with ID cards," he said.  "The Spanish do [have an ID card] - but it isn't a foolproof biometric card with a database, with the ability to test not only the card... but actually the person and the card they hold.  "That's what will be potentially possible and this will ensure that they can't have multiple identities."  Cards could also help combat so-called health tourism and benefit fraud, Mr Blunkett suggested.  "The exploitation of our services, particularly our health and welfare services, is something we'll be able to clamp down on," he told Frost.

"We'll be able to ensure that through true identity we can avoid clandestine entry and clandestine working."  The scheme would not depend on people carrying their cards at all times.  Mr Blunkett said the technology would allow officials to double-check someone's identity simply by scanning, for example, an iris or a fingerprint.  He said: "This is about true identity: Being known, being checkable... in order to know who's in the country, what they're entitled to, and whether they're up to no good."  But the proposal faces opposition among Labour's own backbenches, with Labour MP David Winnick saying the entire idea should be "dropped."  "I think this is a very costly exercise which will not do what is claimed by the home secretary and other enthusiasts," he said.  Civil rights group Liberty raised concerns the government would be unable to keep personal data secure, raising privacy concerns.  Executive director Shami Chakrabarti said: "[David Blunkett] is too quick to offer various draconian measures as a magic bullet to whatever our fears are this week - terrorism, illegal immigration and so on."  Campaigners say having several methods of identification, including passports, driving licences and benefit cards, is the safest option.

Card cost

Ministers have said the £3.1bn cost of introducing a national ID card will be met by raising the cost of passports.  Mr Blunkett said it would cost approximately £31 per person to add biometric details to passports, and people would only pay around an extra £4 for the ID card element.  But he said there would be concessions for the elderly and those on low incomes or applying for their first card at the age of 16.  Government sources say that under the new proposals, carrying false identity papers will become a specific offence for the first time, with offenders facing up to 10 years in jail.

 

ID card trials to start next week in the UK

Trials of identity cards are to be launched next week, the BBC has learnt.  The pilot will involve 10,000 volunteers and be run from the Passport Office in London and three other centres around Britain. The government hopes the pilot scheme will pave the way for compulsory identity cards for everyone within the next decade. Ministers are due to set out details of plans for a nationwide identity database on Monday. They will publish draft legislation and Home Secretary David Blunkett says he wants a Bill paving the way for the scheme to be passed before the next general election. Carrying false identity papers is also to be made a specific offence for the first time under the plans, with offenders facing up to 10 years in jail, say government sources. The new ID cards will hold biometric details - facial dimensions, an iris scan or fingerprints. The pilot scheme will try to assess which of the three options works best. Neil Fisher, from QinetiQ - one of the companies developing the new technology, said the public would want to be able to prove their identity to show they were not a risk. He told the BBC's 10 O'Clock News: "You will want this to be part of your life. "You will want, in what's fast becoming a digital society, to be able to authenticate your identity almost for any transaction that you do, be it going to the bank, going to the shops, going to the airport." News of the pilot follows an opinion poll suggesting 80% of people backed a national ID card scheme. But most of the 1,000 people questioned by MORI expressed doubts the cards could be introduced without problems. Almost half those surveyed said they would not want to pay for the cards. A £35 fee has been proposed. From 2007-08 all new passports and driving licences will include biometric data and there will be separate identity cards for those who do not drive or have passports. By 2012, it is estimated that 80% of workers will have the card or a combined driving licence or passport. The Home Office hopes the scheme will be compulsory by 2014. The plans are designed to tackle identity fraud, which costs Britain an estimated £1.3bn each year. A new government website giving the public advice on how to avoid identity theft is also expected to be set up this summer. On Thursday, Mr Blunkett said the ID cards would probably be free for young people and there would be concessions for the elderly and those on low incomes. He said the biometric system proposed would end multiple identities and give a boost to the fight against terrorism and organised crime. "What has anybody to worry about having their true identity known?" he said. "They have got everything to fear from someone stealing and misusing it." The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism. But civil liberties groups are opposed to the plans, claiming that having a number of means of identification, such as a passport, driving licence or benefit card, was still the safest option. They also predict the cards could worsen race discrimination, particularly as foreign nationals will have to carry the cards before Britons do.

Immigration checks move to Belgium

A deal to extend Britain's borders to the Eurostar terminal in Brussels is expected to be agreed on Thursday. It will mean UK officials can stop travellers with false or inadequate papers before they board trains and are able to claim asylum in the UK. Home Secretary David Blunkett is to meet Belgian interior minister Patrick Dewael in London to complete the deal. Similar measures operate at the three French Eurostar terminals and stopped 9,000 people reaching the UK last year. The measures agreed with France in 2001 reduced asylum applications at London's Waterloo Station - where the Eurostar terminates - by more than 90%. The expected deal with Belgium will set up UK immigration controls at the Brussels-Midi Eurostar station. The UK is continuing to develop other immigration control projects with European Union partners to try and cut people smuggling across the entire continent. The Immigration Service's director of border control David Roberts said: "For a little while we have been exporting our frontier controls to where they are most needed. "In 2001 there were many hundreds of people getting on the Eurostar without proper documents, and when they were dealt with by immigration officials on the train or at Waterloo they claimed asylum. "We have reduced that by about 95%. It's a real success story and we want to extend that to Eurostar coming from Brussels." Mr Roberts said that during one month in 2001, up to 700 people claimed asylum at Waterloo. "Last month I think there was one, and normally there is none," he said. He conceded that would-be immigrants could simply find another port of entry, and said that would be monitored. "There is no evidence at all that what we've done at Calais has displaced hundreds and hundreds of people to other ports in the UK but we've got to be alert for that and we've got to watch the risks carefully," he said. UK immigration officers have been working at Brussels-Midi station since April 2003 but only in an advisory capacity with their Belgian counterparts. The deal will grant them full powers to interview would-be travellers and deny them entry. The Home Office has also funded £9m of detection equipment in France and Belgium. On Wednesday they showed off hi-tech equipment already operating at the Belgian ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge to detect stowaways and contraband in freight lorries.

 

Asylum rules 'leads to hardship'

The government's policy of denying benefits to asylum seekers lodging late claims has a "devastating impact" on health and welfare, it is claimed.  Under regulations introduced last year, only those who apply for asylum soon after arrival in the UK can get accommodation and financial help.  The measures have left large numbers of vulnerable asylum seekers destitute, a survey by the Refugee Council says. They include people who have been raped or tortured in their homeland. Last year, more than 9,000 asylum seekers were refused welfare support under the new rules, which demand that asylum is applied for "as soon as reasonably practicable" after arrival in the UK. The report, based on a survey of homelessness and refugee charities, said voluntary groups had provided help but they had been unable to prevent "systematic destitution". The majority of the organisations had helped homeless asylum seekers suffering from ill-health and hunger and lacking essentials such as clothes and toiletries. Some asylum claimants had to sleep in rubbish bins, cars and telephone boxes, the report said. One case involved a young woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo who was pregnant as a result of rape. The Refugee Council said she was initially refused support and left homeless but that officials were persuaded to reverse their decision.

'Repeal law'

Maeve Sherlock, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said refugees who had suffered trauma sometimes found it difficult to look for help. She said: "There are numerous valid reasons refugees might not seek asylum straight away. In fact, the more trauma someone has suffered, the harder they may find it to seek help and follow the proper procedure. "As our report clearly demonstrates, this law causes nothing but harm and should be repealed." In the survey, 74% of organisations who responded said they had seen clients who had been refused support even though they had applied for asylum within a few days of arrival. And 74% said clients had been forced to sleep rough with 66% reporting health problems as a result of being made destitute.  But the Home Office has disputed the findings, saying there was little hard evidence of increased levels of destitution.

 

Blair admits asylum problem in the UK

Tony Blair last night admitted public trust in his handling of the immigration system has been shattered. The admission came after the Prime Minister yesterday had to call in public spending watchdogs to prove he has NOT massaged immigration figures. And he and Home Secretary David Blunkett both vowed to “get a grip” on the growing problem. Mr Blair said: “There are abuses of the system and we have to deal with those abuses. “I understand why people are angry about the issue of immigration. “If they feel they are playing by the rules yet people are coming here illegally, they get angry. “Where there is abuse we will deal with it. I am angry about people defrauding the system.” Mr Blunkett added: “I understand why people are distrustful over immigration. We are determined to get a grip on the situation.”

The pair spoke out after an hour-long Downing Street summit on the immigration crisis — denounced as a stunt by Tory critics. The PM has ordered a full probe by the National Audit Office into official government statistics on the issue. Tuesday’s hour-long No10 meeting was held with Home Office ministers and officials and the head of MI5 Eliza Manningham Buller.Mr Blair firmly denied stitching up a deal with Romania’s PM to wave through visa applications in return for fewer asylum seekers.And he insisted it was vital for Britain to welcome in more migrant workers to boost the economy.But he also vowed to set up Home Office task forces to deal with the growing crisis of illegal immigrants. And he pledged a crackdown on bogus marriages and foreign students who take up short-term courses to get around immigration controls.Earlier a High Court judge blasted sacked immigration minister Beverley Hughes for misleading him over a new detention centre for asylum seekers.Mr Justice Collins said information she gave his inquiry into the site of the camp was “not entirely accurate”.But he upheld Deputy Premier John Prescott’s decision to put the centre in rural Bicester, Oxfordshire. Angry locals say the area will be “swamped” by large numbers of migrants.

A PROFESSOR rubbished claims immigrants bring £2.5billion to Britain last night — saying they actually COST taxpayers £400m.Cambridge-based Robert Row-thorn said Tony Blair has his sums wrong when he argues foreign workers boost the economy.He said the PM based that on freak figures from booming 1999 and included millions of tax paid to the Treasury by shareholders living abroad. He also claimed Mr Blair ignored the £800m annual bill for the immigration service.Prof Rowthorn believes foreign labour is needed — but only highly-skilled workers usually trained in developed countries. He added: “People who say this country needs more immigration mean we should encourage the unskilled. “This harms weaker sections of society who have to compete.”

 

BRITISH children are in peril because Romanians with no qualifications are getting visas to work here as child protection officers, it was revealed  on Tuesday night. Many cannot even speak English yet their applications are being waived through unchecked. The sham was exposed by consultants for the International Aid department. The firm’s boss Roger Shaw told how Romanians trained with UK taxpayers’ cash to become probation officers are coming here as social workers.Mr Shaw told International Aid officials kids in care homes were at risk. He wrote: “This opens the door to criticism if one of the Romanians’ cases in the UK went wrong.”Tory David Davis said: “This shows how potentially dangerous the consequences can be of a failed immigration policy.”

Asylum protesters lose court bid

Protesters fighting to stop a proposed asylum centre in rural Oxfordshire have lost their legal challenge.

A High Court judge ruled on Tuesday that Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was right to grant planning permission for the scheme.

But residents have vowed to maintain their battle against the plan, despite the decision by Mr Justice Collins.

Former Ministry of Defence (MoD) land near Bicester will now be used for a centre to house 750 migrants.

It is planned that up to 400 single men, 50 single women and 300 family members will stay at the centre while they wait to find out if their applications for asylum have been successful.

People living in the complex, between the villages of Arncott and Piddington, would be free to come and go as they please.

Lawyers for Conservative-led Cherwell Council had argued that Mr Prescott had ignored the results of a public inquiry when he gave permission for the plan.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Collins said: "I appreciate this will be of considerable disappointment to the many who oppose the establishment of this centre.

"But I can only act if an error of law is established and, for the reasons I have given, there is in my judgment no error which could produce relief.

"The defendant (Mr Prescott) was entitled to exercise his own judgment on the weight to be attached to the material matters and thus to differ from the inspector. The claim must therefore be dismissed."

But the judge criticised Beverley Hughes, who resigned as immigration minister, for making statements which were "not entirely accurate" about the impact of the proposed centre on local services.

A Conservative MP who campaigned against the centre condemned the ruling as "crazy", while the leader of the council said he was considering an appeal.

Banbury MP Tony Baldry said: "No organisation involved in the day-to-day welfare of asylum seekers thought this was the right policy and the court's decision raises serious questions over the democracy of planning policy.

"If ministers can put up two fingers to a planning inspector after a planning inquiry, what's the point of having them?

"The idea of fitting asylum seekers into the Oxfordshire countryside is a crazy policy.

"I suspect if it ever happens, it will be a disaster because they will simply drift away into the countryside."

'Further appeal'

George Reynolds, leader of Cherwell District Council, said: "We are naturally very disappointed at this outcome.

"We have always felt that the process and decision-making were flawed.

"We will now be studying the written judgment very carefully to assess whether there are grounds for further appeal."

Des Browne, the new immigration minister, welcomed the ruling and invited people living nearby to co-operate with the new centre's development.

He said: "The centre will be largely self-sufficient, with health and education facilities on site, and should not be seen as being detrimental to the local community.

"I hope that the local community will work with us as we develop our plans in Bicester and drive forward with our reforms to create an asylum system that all people can have trust and confidence in."

A spokesman for Mr Prescott said: "We are pleased at the outcome but have no further comment to make on the ruling."

 

 

KENYANS DEPORTED IN THE LAST TWO WEEK March 26 2004 at 10:50 PM		CONCERNED
It is very sad that so many Kenyans are being deported at such high numbers. In the last 2 weeks several Kenyans have been deported and all their cases are similar. Majority of Kenyans do not attend meeting which address immigration issues. These meetings are very helpful because at the end of the day you will know at what level your immigration case is or have an opportunity to ask questions. Ignorance will cost so many other Kenyans an opportunity they would not have lost had they sacrificed a day’s work to attend some of these functions. The immigration stages are defined 1. After seeking asylum you have to attend an interview at the home office. After the interview you will be informed if your claim is successful or not. 2. If your claim at the home office is not successful then you have to take action very fast. Consult your solicitor and appeal to the court so that the judge can decide whether the decision of the home office is okay. At this stage your appeal for asylum may be allowed together with Human Right or the Human rights may be allowed. If appeal is allowed you have to give the home office 10 days to allow them to appeal to the immigration tribunal. If they don’t then your solicitors has to make representation to the home office on the basis of the appeal and ask them to grant you leave to remain. 3. If your appeal is refused, again you have to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal. they will look at the decision of the judge to see if the decision is unlawful or not. IF YOU DO NOT APPEAL AT THIS STAGE TO THE TRIBUNAL OR TO THE ADJUDICATOR OR AFTER TRIBUNAL YOU DO NOT DO ANYTHING, THEN YOUR ARE UNDERGROUND AND IF YOU ARE CAUGHT IT IS A DISASTER. It is at this stage that most Kenyans stop their cases. They do not bother to question their solicitors what they could do next. Within no time the home office issues reporting notices and on one morning they detain you and you are booked for the next flight home. There is another group of Kenyans who claim that they were told by their solicitors not to attend their appeal hearing. This is wrong because you are the one who brought the action and you must attend to defend your case. There are so many options that are available for people who have reached the tribunal or appeal stage. It is very important to seek advice but to the right people. Immigration laws keep on changing all the time and you might miss your bus. again have good relationships with your solicitors. Most people don’t settle their bills with their solicitors and they move from one law firm to the ext incurring hefty bills. By the time they try to track their files they cannot remember who should be having the relevant papers.For the next 3 weeks several organisations are holding immigration meetings. On the 27th march pastor john gichiri is holding one at heston. the others are in north London and east London. if you fall in these categories make a point of seeking legal advice. time is running out. the police are stopping people anywhere at anytime and the first thing they are doing is to check your status. it might be you tomorrow. The sad thing is that you will leave all your valuables behind. even if you have bought a house the immigration officers don’t care. the way they detain you that is the way you will be deported. TAKE COVER AND SEE YOUR SOLICITORS FOR ADVICE FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE SOLICITORS THEY ARE LIKE GP’S VERY IMPORTANT, YOU MUST HAVE ONE IN CASE OF A RAINY DAY.

 

It means that as an employer you could be guilty of a criminal offence if you employ someone who does not have permission to be in the UK

THE BACKGROUND

The number of people detected by the Immigration Service working either while here illegally or while prohibited from working has risen significantly in recent years. In 1996 the Government took steps to deal with the problem of illegal working. The law, which affects you as an employer, is intended to ensure that only those legally entitled to live and work in the United Kingdom are offered employment.

In order to encourage employers to consider applicants' eligibility to work in the United Kingdom and to discourage illegal working, a new criminal offence was created in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. This guidance has been prepared to help you understand the implications of this offence for you as an employer.

The new offence relates to employees who started work for you on or after 27 January 1997. It means that as an employer you could be guilty of a criminal offence if you employ someone who does not have permission to be in - or to work in - the United Kingdom. You can protect yourself by making certain basic checks before taking on new employees.

This does not mean that employers will be expected to act as immigration officers. Responsibility for immigration control remains firmly with the Immigration Service.

The checks which you need to make to claim this defence will in most cases be straightforward. They could be built into your normal recruitment procedures. The checks are not compulsory. But they are advisable. If you do not make them you will not have the statutory defence which they provide.

If you try to avoid prosecution by refusing to consider for a job anyone who looks or sounds foreign, you are likely to contravene the Race Relations Act 1976. If you make checks you should ensure that they are made in a non-discriminatory manner. For further advice about this important point see the section on Avoiding Racial Discrimination. (A code of practice for employers on the avoidance of racial discrimination in recruitment practice is expected to come into effect in April 2001.)

It is very important that you read all this advice carefully.

NEW MEASURES TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WORKING

Changes to the law will make it easier to prosecute companies who employ illegal workers, the Home Secretary David Blunkett announced today.  The change will also make it easier for legitimate business to keep within the law.

New guidance will be issued to employers to make clear what documents they are required to see as proof of entitlement to work. A number of documents which have been exploited by forgers will no longer provide a defence against prosecution for illegal employment.  The Government is also considering whether to increase the penalty for employing illegal workers to act as a deterrent.

The new regulations, which will come into force on 1 May, are part of a comprehensive, cross-Government approach to tackling illegal working.  This includes strengthened border controls to prevent illegal immigration, increased enforcement activity and action to tackle the organised criminal networks, who traffick illegal workers to the UK.

Mr Blunkett said:

“Illegal working is a modern day slave trade run by organised criminals.  It exploits vulnerable people, undermines fair business competition and the minimum wage, deprives the economy of tax and National Insurance contributions and acts as a pull factor for illegal immigration to the UK.

“The Government is taking action - increasing the number of enforcement operations, enhancing the powers of immigration officers to raid business premises and investing in multi-agency taskforce Reflex to disrupt the people-smuggling gangs behind this trade.  We are also reviewing the enforcement work of the Immigration Service to ensure it is given an adequate priority. Illegal working is a serious crime and we are considering whether to increase the penalty for employers who flout the law.

“But illegal working cannot be tackled by government alone, and we have been working closely with employers and unions to draw up these measures.  Employers have a duty to make proper checks on employees.  This change will help legitimate business keep on the right side of the law, and make it easier to prosecute those who think they can get away with employing illegal workers.  Companies need to continue to play their part, and make proper checks on workers. 

“In the longer term I believe that ID cards will make it possible to implement a more robust process and ensure that employers comply with the law.

“The United Kingdom needs and welcomes legitimate foreign workers who will work hard and contribute.  We have expanded the opportunities for people to come to the UK to work legally to help fill over half a million vacancies in our labour market.”

The Home Office also announced that a new Immigration Office would open in Swaffham, Norfolk, this week - more than doubling the capacity of IS to tackle illegal working in the King's Lynn area and northern East Anglia.  

Steps already being taken to tackle illegal working include:

• increasing the number of enforcement operations;
• increasing the number of staff engaged in enforcement work by nearly 50 per cent in the last two years. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is also reviewing its activities to develop the coverage and focus of it's enforcement effort;
• removing record numbers of immigration offenders from the UK - 65,000 in 2002.  This figure comprises failed asylum seekers, immigration offenders and those refused entry at ports and airports;
• using Operation Reflex to prosecute the criminals who smuggle people to the UK and provide the fake documents used to get jobs fraudulently.  Since April 2003, 30 criminal gangs have been disrupted and 28 people traffickers and smugglers convicted; and
• developing routes for employers to recruit legally the foreign workers they need to grow their businesses and fill the half a million job vacancies in the UK, undercutting the demand for illegal workers.

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 brought in other measures to tighten up the law, and make bringing prosecutions against criminal employers easier.  Including changes to the regulations governing document checks, enabling immigration officers to exercise warrants without police officers to enter and search premises of suspected offenders. The position of partnerships has also been clarified and the time limit for bringing a prosecution extended to three years, giving invaluable extra time to investigate complex employment relationships. 

The current Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill creates a new offence of trafficking for exploitation, including forced labour, with a maximum penalty of 14 years.  

Notes to editors:

1. The regulations will make changes to Section 8 of Immigration and Asylum Act 1996. Guidance about the changes will be posted on the Employers' Information section of the IND website from 16 March. http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk.

2. Details about the changes are attached.

3. The 1.3 million employers registered for PAYE will be sent written guidance during April detailing the changes to the document requirements, ahead of the regulations coming into force on 1 May 2004. The new regulations will apply to all employees taken on from that date.

4. The summary and analysis of the responses to the consultation on these proposed changes are also published today on the website at the following address - http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/file.asp?fileid=1137.

5. The Immigration Service participates in Operation Gangmaster together with DWP, Inland Revenue, HMCE and DEFRA. It has three key elements:

• Gathering and collating intelligence on gangmasters working in the informal economy to enable better and more effective targeting of compliance activity;
• Designing and undertaking specific cross-Government operations deploying compliance staff from relevant Departments to investigate gangmasters and their employees where they are involved in illegal activities; and
• Providing information to employers and employees about their obligations and rights under the law.

6. On 17 November 2003, Beverley Hughes announced additional funding of £60 million to expand Reflex activity.  Operation Reflex is the multi-agency taskforce which was set up by the government in May 2000 to tackle the criminal gangs who not only smuggle people illegally into the UK, but also provide them with false documents and jobs once they are in the country.  There are approximately 70 investigations underway and since April 2003, 30 criminal gangs have been disrupted and 28 people traffickers and smugglers convicted.

7. The Government fully supports the objectives behind the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill. The Government is committed to tackling the exploitative activities of gangmasters who appear to have no respect for the law or for people.

REGULATORY CHANGES TO SECTION 8 (IAA 1996)

It is a criminal offence under section 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996 to employ someone who is not entitled to work or do that particular job in the United Kingdom. The penalty for this offence is currently a maximum of £5,000 per employee.

Section 8 provides a statutory defence against prosecution for employers who check that new employees possess the documents listed in the legislation toconfirm whether the holder is permitted to work in the UK. The changes announced on 16 March 2004 are designed to make these checks more robust, and they will come into force on 1 May 2004 and apply to all employees taken on from that date.

We are making these changes for three reasons:

• to make it harder for people who do not have permission to work to get jobs using fake documents 
• to make it easier for employers to check that the individuals they wish to employ are legally permitted to work
• to make it easier for the immigration authorities to take action against employers who deliberately employ illegal workers

The changes acknowledge the variation in the security features of different documents, and they are placed on one of two lists:

• Secure documents are on the first list and can be accepted by employers on a standalone basis. These include passports, ID cards and other travel documents.
• Not everyone has been issued with such documents, including many British citizens. In light of this, employers can accept a combination of specified documents contained in the second list. For example, a full British birth certificate produced alongside a document giving the person's National Insurance number.

Employers must take reasonable steps to ensure that documents produced actually relate to the job applicant in question i.e. where a document contains a photograph, being satisfied that the applicant is the person in the photograph, and if the document contains a date of birth, being satisfied that it is consistent with the apparent age of the person.

Documents which were found to be misused have been taken off the list and employers can no longer rely on copies of these documents to establish a defence from prosecution:

• Standard Acknowledgement Letter (SAL) for asylum seekers
• Construction Industry Scheme card
• Short United Kingdom Birth Certificate.

Detailed guidance is available on the Employers' Information section of the IND website www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk

SACOMA

108 Cranbrook Road

Ilford, Essex 1GI  4LZ

Tel: (44) 208 554 9444

Fax: (44) 208 554 3336

Mbl: (44) 07956 408 655

www.sacoma.org

Compromise offer over asylum row

Plans to deny asylum seekers the right of a court appeal if their claims are rejected have been dropped by the government amid fierce opposition. The legislation proposed outlawing the right to appeal asylum decisions in the High Court through judicial review. But opening a House of Lords debate on the Bill, the lord chancellor said he would make changes to the appeals plans so judges could supervise the system. Lord Falconer said the system both had to be fair and cut down on abuses. The climbdown has been welcomed by lawyers and campaigners for refugees' rights. Under the bill as it stands, asylum seekers would be allowed only one appeal - to the same tribunal as made the original decision, and not to the higher courts. The Law Society, the Bar Council and Justice joined senior judges in calling for the plans to be abandoned, warning they could cost lives. And the most senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Woolf, said the plans would go against the basic principle of the rule of law. He told the House of Lords on Monday he welcomed the change of policy. He said: "I am sure the announcement will be greeted with approval by the judiciary and indeed by everyone who is committed to the upholding within this country of the rule of law." Lord Falconer acknowledged the widespread opposition, saying his predecessor as Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, had "forcibly made representations" about the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of claimants) Bill.

The lord chancellor told peers the government was determined to reduce the time taken by the appeals process, which could stretch to 62 weeks. Some claimants deliberately delayed the system so they could claim benefits and housing, he argued. But he added: "The system also needs to ensure we have proper judicial oversight. We do not have that right yet." Lord Falconer said he believed it was possible to both cut delays and have the system overseen by the higher courts. He said the government was prepared to bring forward amendments to replace existing review procedures "with a new system allowing oversight by the administrative court (the part of the High Court which hears judicial review cases) in those decisions". "That system must ensure speed is increased and abuse is reduced." The Bill received an unopposed second reading from peers. It is not yet known when details of the government's proposed changes will be revealed. Maeve Sherlock, of the Refugee Council, said the government was taking "the sensible option" in reviewing its plans. A Bar Council spokesman said: "This is a major climbdown by the Home Office because the initial drafting of the Bill was absolutely categorical in saying there could be no judicial oversight. "It's a very significant change of heart and one which we are wholeheartedly thankful for." Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said he welcomed the lord chancellor's decision to drop "unworkable" proposals. And Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said he was glad to see the government drop a "grubby measure" to strip asylum seekers of their right to a court appeal.

EU migrants face benefits curbs

Migrants from nations joining the EU in May will have to work or leave the UK, Tony Blair has insisted. He spoke as Home Secretary David Blunkett announced plans to cope with migrants after EU enlargement in May. People from the new EU states would not need work permits but would need to be on a work register, said Mr Blunkett. Migrants without work will be banned from most benefits for at least two years but those working could take some welfare payments immediately. Earlier, Mr Blair said residents of the eight ex-East European communist countries would only be able to stay if they had jobs. "If they can't support themselves, they will be put out of the country," he told a BBC radio phone-in.

Labour shortages

Britain and the Irish Republic had been the only two EU countries planning to give the unrestricted right to work to people from new EU member states.

That prompted fears there would be an influx of thousands of people. With most other EU nations imposing restrictions, the home secretary said "it makes sense that our approach will not leave us exposed".

"People who come here from accession countries but do not work will not be able to claim benefits."

That restriction will last until at least 2006. But migrants who work continuously for more than a year will be able to claim benefits like income support or jobseeker's allowance earlier if they lose their jobs.

Those who are working, paying tax and national insurance, will also immediately be able to claim: emergency NHS treatment, council tax benefit, housing benefit, homelessness assistance, child benefit, working tax credit, child tax credit and state pension credit.

Mr Blunkett said there were labour shortages to be filled and he wanted people to be able to work legally.

"Whether they are plumbers or paediatricians, they are welcome if they come here openly to work and contribute." Insisting on work permits risked pushing migrants onto the black market, where they would pay neither tax nor national insurance, he argued.

The work registration scheme would enable the government to monitor the type and location of jobs taken by new migrants, he said.

"If the registration scheme shows an imbalance in the labour market we will re-impose restrictions."

'Tabloid fiction'

The measures were agreed at a hastily arranged meeting in Downing Street chaired by Mr Blair last week.

Ministers deny adopting panic measures but shadow home secretary David Davis said there was "chaos and confusion" because decisions had been taken too late.

He predicted there would be large numbers of migrants, which would put "huge pressure" on public services. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the policy should be based on "fact not tabloid fiction".

Rather than introduce measures on the back of predictions of a migrant influx, Mr Oaten said it would be better to review whether controls were needed six months after enlargement.

All existing EU states can impose transitional restrictions for up to seven years on the right of residents of eight of the 10 new EU member states to work and claim benefits.

The restrictions only cover the former communist states joining the EU.

Ahead of Monday's statement, Mr Blunkett said UK border controls may be extended to Belgium in the drive against asylum system abuses.

In a deal with France, British officials are already allowed to check the documents of passengers boarding London-bound Eurostar trains in Paris.

 

 

UK considers tightening migration

The UK is looking at tighter controls to limit increased migration from Eastern Europe, Tony Blair has said.

The prime minister hinted at new measures to limit the number of people arriving from new EU countries.

Tory leader Michael Howard said nearly every other EU member state had imposed controls to limit the possible influx.

Mr Blair replied: "We will take whatever measures are necessary in order to make sure that the pull factor is closed off."

On 1 May 10 countries, including Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, are set to join the EU.

Concessions?

Mr Howard said that although he welcomed the new members, the UK had opted not to impose "transitional controls on the free movement of citizens".

Mr Blair replied: "The point you raise is a justified one. It is important that we recognise that there is a potential risk from these accession countries of people coming in.

"It's precisely for that reason now that we are looking at the concessions we gave and if it is right that closing off those concessions is going to mean we deal with this problem, then we will do so."

Mr Howard said that all the UK Government had done so far was to screen adverts on Slovak television asking people not to come to Britain.

That was despite the fact that the accession treaty enabling the new members to join allowed the UK the right to impose controls.

There have already been indications this week that the government is looking at issues like eligibility to benefits for people arriving in the UK - a system which Mr Blair suggested was "too generous" at present.

 

UK's border security criticised

The government's slow progress on establishing a new border security force to tackle illegal immigration has been criticised by MPs.

The Home Affairs Select Committee's report on the asylum system also expressed concern over the quality of decisions on asylum applications.

The all-party group insists Britain is "not a soft touch" but concludes there are weaknesses in the current system.

It said more needs to be done to ensure that failed asylum seekers leave.

Attractive UK?

The committee first called for a unified frontier force two years ago.

It said police, Customs and Excise and the Immigration Service should be brought together to tighten the UK's borders.

Although ministers are examining the possibility, the home secretary has said there are "strong differences" of opinion between the various agencies involved.

The committee said there had been "undue delay" in resolving the disagreements and it was now "time to act".

The report also called for greater investment in the system for processing asylum applications.

It said there were "grounds for concern" about the standard of decision-making by immigration staff, with a "disturbing" rise in successful appeals.

It said there had been "significant improvements" in the removal of failed applicants.

But it argued the rate of removal remained "unacceptably low" given the numbers who were eligible.

About 50% of applications come from "economic migrants", the MPs say.

And they suggest a perception there had been low removal levels, lengthy appeals proceedings and the absences of "systematic identity checks", as well as the "opportunity to work legally or illegally", may have played a part in making the UK "a relatively more attractive destination than some others in Europe".

The MPs also warn against amnesties for asylum seekers.

Tough action

Committee chairman John Denham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the government had had successes such as reducing the number of asylum applications, but had key weaknesses.

The former Home Office minister said: "Too many initial decisions are wrong and that leads to lengthy delays with appeals. They still need to step up the removal system.

"We need to tackle the problem of illegal working by much more attention to the people who employ illegal workers... use the Proceeds of Crime Act to seize the assets of people who are living off the organised crime of illegal labour."

The MPs also call for an independent review the policy of refusing asylum to people who fail to claim it promptly on arriving in the UK.

New measures

And they back the introduction of accommodation centres where asylum seekers are able to have board, education, health and access to interpreters all on one site.

Home Office minister Beverley Hughes said: "Over the last year applications have been halved, removals increased and the system speeded up so that 80% of decisions on new cases are now made within two months.

"However, I am the first to recognise that we must continue to work to ensure we have a robust system that is resistant to abuse, while providing protection for genuine refugees."

She added: "I will shortly be announcing new measures to tighten up the law regulating the documentation employers must check to ensure they are not employing someone illegally."

 

 

Self assessment reality check

With deadline day for the completion of self assessment tax forms looming, a leading accountant provides some help for people perplexed by Inland Revenue procedure.

What exactly is self-assessment?

It is the term given to the regime by which taxpayers - or their accountants on their behalf - are required to complete their tax returns, calculate the tax they owe and return this to the Inland Revenue.

How do I know if I should be completing a self-assessment form?

If you haven't received a self-assessment form, this is most likely to be because your tax affairs are dealt with under the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) regime.

However, if you have income that the Inland Revenue may not be aware of, you must contact them to request a form. This will apply to you if, for example, you have inherited some money and have put this in a bank or building society account or perhaps sold a holiday home.

Who is likely to be caught in the self-assessment net?

Self-assessment affects a wide range of people.

• The self-employed
• Company directors
• Employees who pay higher rate tax
• People with complicated tax affairs who pay higher rate tax

If the Inland Revenue has sent you a self-assessment form you are obliged to complete it.

Even if you don't believe you ought to have been sent the form, you will still need to return it to avoid the risk of a fine, along with a letter explaining why you believe that you don't need to complete the form in future.

When are the deadlines for self assessment?

31 January 2004 is the very final date for your form to be at the Inland Revenue to avoid penalties and fines.

If you wanted the Inland Revenue to calculate what you owe then you needed to have returned your form by the end of September.

However, people can fill out their self-assessment tax form online and have what they owe calculated right up until the 31 January deadline.

What happens if I don't return my form on time?

Anyone whose form is not received by 31 January will be subject to a £100 fine.

All in all, some 900,000 people fail to submit their forms by the January deadline and as a result are hit with a fine.

Further penalties could follow. An additional surcharge of 5% of the unpaid tax is added if you have not paid by 28 February.

If it still remains unpaid more than six months after it was due, another 5% surcharge is added and a further £100 fine is incurred.

What happens if I have not paid in previous years but own up this time around?

You should request and complete a self-assessment form for this tax year (2002/03) and include with this a letter informing the Inland Revenue of whatever it is you have not told them in previous years.

Remember, the self-assessment form is a complete declaration - you must tell the Inland Revenue everything on this form, including your salary.

The Inland Revenue will charge you interest and surcharges from when the tax was due, so it is better to come clean sooner rather than later.

What will happen if I make a mistake on my self assessment tax return?

That rather depends on the sort of mistake you have made.

If it is something obvious, such as an arithmetical error, the inspector will either correct the mistake or contact you for clarification.

If the inspector believes that something more fundamental may be wrong with your form, he will then start to make enquiries.

How frequently are the details given on a self-assessment form investigated and how is this usually done?

The Inland Revenue checks out a relatively small percentage of returns each year, although this adds up to several hundred thousand enquiries.

If you are selected for investigation, you will receive a letter saying that the Inland Revenue is making enquiries.

This is most commonly regarding a specific aspect of your return, but in some instances, they may ask for your complete books and records.

There are relatively few cases where the Inland Revenue carries out a full investigation.

On Tuesday, the Commons Accounts Committee revealed that the Inland Revenue only carries out about 400 serious fraud investigations annually.

Once an investigation is underway it can take anything from a few weeks to several months to complete.

As a rule of thumb, the Inland Revenue has 12 months after a self assessment form has been received to open enquires.

However, forms received late can be open to investigation for a longer time span.

 

 

 

New restrictions on free NHS treatment for overseas

visitors and failed asylum seekers

New restrictions on free NHS treatment for overseas visitors and failed asylum seekers have been outlined.  Ministers say "health tourism", where people visit the UK expressly for free treatment, costs the NHS dear. From April these patients will have to pay in advance, unless the treatment is an emergency or for infectious disease. Doctors have attacked the plans, saying they do not want to question sick people about their immigration status. Opposition politicians have also questioned the proposals, calling on ministers to provide hard evidence that there actually is a problem. One study has suggested health tourism costs the NHS up to £200m a year, but the Department of Health has admitted no firm figures exist.

Loopholes

There are already rules restricting free treatment, but the government says they are not being properly followed and loopholes are being abused. Ministers cite cases of heavily pregnant women arriving in the country on a holiday visa, knowing they will get free treatment. Some business travellers are even bringing their partners and children with them - and then "suddenly discovering" there is something wrong with them. And hospitals are not asking people to prove they are entitled to NHS benefits, and not doing enough to chase up costs which could be recouped, the government says. The rules will also be changed to allow British pensioners to spend up to six months out of the country every year and still be eligible for free NHS treatment.  Currently if someone spends more than three months out of the country they are technically not eligible.

'Abuses'

Health secretary John Reid said: "If there are bona fide tourists dropping ill in the street, of course we will do what we have to do, but we are not mugs.

"There is a difference between being civilised and being taken for a ride."

Mr Reid said the crackdown would also target failed asylum seekers who were "effectively stealing treatment from the people of this country".

"I am not talking about emergency treatment, matters of life and death.

"I am talking about routine treatment that causes the people of this country, who are legally and morally entitled to it, to have to wait longer."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Health Minister John Hutton insisted there was a serious problem with the way the system was working, but when pushed admitted no hard figures were available.

However, he said: "The NHS has told us that the regulations need to change because there are abuses going on.

"The NHS is there to provide free treatment for those who live here, not those who don't. It is a national health service. Not an international service.

"Irrespective of the financial scale of abuse, it is important we establish a closer link between free use of the NHS and residency in the UK."

Asylum seekers

It is not yet clear how the new rules will be applied. The Department of Health says there will not be a need for new hospital managers.

But the British Medical Association says it is not up to doctors to police the system.

Dr Edwin Borman, chairman of the BMA's international committee, questioned whether there was any evidence that health tourism was a significant problem.

He added that he did not want to see doctors becoming "state agents" for a discriminatory system.

"I have a responsibility to any patient to treat their illness, and care for them as much as is possible," he said.

"It is entirely appropriate that the citizens of the UK are treated to the very best extent possible by the NHS.

"But we also have an obligation to people who are visiting this country and who, quite reasonably, from time to time might suddenly have an emergency, to treat them."

As for plans to deny treatment to failed asylum seekers, he described these as "utterly unacceptable".

"It is incorrect and inappropriate for the state - if it is unable to deal with its own particular Home Office-related procedures - to then call on the NHS to withdraw treatment where it may be entirely necessary on medical grounds," he said.

Shadow health secretary Tim Yeo said the plans would only "scratch the surface" of the problem.

He accused the government of failing to analyse the problem properly, and said that until it did, the plans would fail to win support.

'Problem'

"Any attempt to address the problem of health tourism must involve three things," he said.

"Firstly they must consult with family doctors about how to prevent people not entitled to free NHS treatment from registering as patients.

"Secondly they must consult with immigration authorities screening potential immigrants and asylum seekers for HIV/Aids and TB.

"Thirdly, awareness must be raised abroad, that not everyone who comes to Britain is automatically entitled to free treatment for non-emergency conditions."

The Liberal Democrats said the proposals could mean members of ethnic minorities being asked about their right to receive treatment when they turned up at hospitals.

Health spokesman Paul Burstow said: "The government says it bases its policies on evidence.

"But what is clear with this proposal to charge foreigners for healthcare before they are treated is that it is not based on evidence.

"It is based on hearsay and prejudice."

However, the government was backed by David Hinchliffe, the Labour chairman of the Commons Health Select Committee, who said there was no doubt the NHS was being abused by a minority of visitors to the UK.

"It's a problem, and the government is right to face up to it," he said.

 

US unveils strict visa rules
 

The United States government has introduced strict visa rules for visitors entering the country.

From January 5, 2004, visitors who require visas to enter the US will have their fingerprints and photographs taken and compared with those in the visa application form.

Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security, said the new hi-tech procedure is designed to eliminate the use of fake passports by foreign nationals, provide instant access to their visa history and instantly check any criminal background and any links to terrorism.

"For the first time in history we will be able to biometrically confirm the identity of the visa traveller to the US," he said.

"The immediate benefit is that if someone comes into our country under a false passport they won’t make it because we can biometrically confirm who they are and it will prevent us from having to rely upon what could be used as false documents."

The US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) programme, which is required by a law passed after the September 11 terror attacks, is "inoffensive," "easy" and "quick" and it is expected to add just a few more seconds to the usual immigration inspection process at airports but provide a huge boost to security, Hutchinson said.

All visitors with visas will be asked to place both index fingers on a digital scanner and then pose for a photograph. The information, including a biometrics analysis of facial features, will immediately be transmitted and run through databases.

"Yes it will enhance security and yes it will increase the integrity of our immigration system, but it will also be of benefit to those who wish to travel to the United States," Hutchinson said.

The US-VISIT programme will be implemented in stages and will cover all points of entry to the US by 2006.

The system will eventually record both entry and exit information and maintain a history of the visitor’s movement. Those who do not violate the law or overstay their visas will gradually build a good record and eventually find the process easier, Hutchinson said.

"The US wants to continue to be a welcoming nation, whether it’s our foreign students, international business travellers or tourists. We want to be a destination that continues to welcome those international partners," he said.

A Department of Homeland Security official said that after being used for the initial check and verification process, the information gathered will be made available to US law enforcement agencies upon request on a case-by-case basis.

When asked by the East African Standard if the new programme would have been able to stop the September 11 hijackers, Hutchinson said: "It’s speculative. It’s hard to know. But this is designed to minimise that possibility and to detect those people who might enter our country under false documents or who have dishonoured our visa program in the past."

Some categories of diplomats and employees of international organisations will be exempt from US-VISIT.

 

Immigrants may pay £500 to enter Britain

Immigrants could be forced to pay £500 to come to Britain in a cash-raising drive by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The charge would be levied on anyone applying to work, study or join their family in the UK, under Government proposals to be debated by MPs next week.

Ministers hope the fee would raise £450 million a year for the Treasury. But the scale of the demand is certain to be resisted by the families of the 900,000 migrants who enter Britain each year - and by some MPs. Provision to introduce a charge is included in the smallprint of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will be debated by MPs next week.

But the £500 figure, far higher than expected, was slipped out in an unannounced Home Office technical assessment.

The document said the main reason for the charge was to raise revenue, and added: " Economic migrants benefit in many ways working in the UK, over and above a higher salary expectation. It is appropriate to pass on some of the costs of these benefits onto the migrants."

The extra demand, to be phased in, would come on top of existing fees for work or study permits. It would raise the cost of entering Britain to £625 for workers and £655 for students.

The Home Office is looking at ways to offer discounts to specialists recruited from abroad to fill skills shortages. It concedes that if the fee is set too high, it could deter potential migrants and encourage illegal entry.

Asylum-seekers would be exempt from the charge. Under international law, Britain must accept genuine refugees even if they are destitute.

The charge would raise a quarter of the £1.8 billion-ayear cost of running the immigration and asylum system.

Economists claim immigration is already a net moneyspinner for Britain, because it brings in workers who pay tax and do jobs others do not want.

============================================================

Asylum seekers to face tagging

Asylum seekers could be electronically tagged rather than placed in detention centres, the home secretary has said.

The new powers, to be brought in under an Asylum Bill, would see tagging used for immigrants whose applications have been rejected.

The package of new measures will also reduce asylum seekers' access to an appeals process.

The bill was introduced as Tony Blair achieved his pledge to halve the number of asylum claims in a year.

Care

Introducing the measures, Home Secretary David Blunkett predicted that a new type of tag, which uses satellite technology for pinpointing the wearer's location, would be used within 12 to 18 months.

The bill includes measures to stop the benefits of asylum families who refuse offers of "voluntary" flights home when their applications are rejected.

The government says it intends to go ahead with controversial plans to take into care the children of those families.

Mr Blunkett said families in this situation would be treated in the same way as any others who "put their children at risk".

Only a "handful" of families would be affected, he said.

But the fact that the plan did not appear specifically in the new legislation - because it would be done under existing laws - could reduce the risk of Labour MPs rebelling against the bill.

Under the proposals, asylum seekers' access to an appeals process would be reduced more severely than previously thought, preventing them applying to the High Court or for judicial reviews.

Blunkett's message

There will also be only one chance to appeal against asylum decisions, change designed to prevent people launching multiple appeals to delay the process.

The plans also include restricting the amount of legal aid available to asylum seekers, which has doubled over the past two years to £174m.

Legal aid will only be paid for five hours of initial advice under the plans and only given for appeals which the Legal Services Commission decides are worth pursuing.

There will also be limits put on the total amount of taxpayers' money that can be spent on different types of cases.

Mr Blunkett said: "I am sending a signal that if you pass through safe countries, you should claim asylum there.

Legal aid row

"We are going to get a grip of this, because gross dishonesty by those who are trafficked by organised criminals is giving genuine asylum seekers a very bad name indeed."

Earlier, Mr Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the government had to get a grip of the legal aid issues.

"At the moment, the sky's the limit," he said. "The law firms certify themselves, even the better law firms know there are absolutely rogue advisers who are not even lawyers who are completely ripping off the system.

"My only regret is that we did not actually get a grip of this a lot earlier but with the new lord chancellor/secretary of state for constitutional affairs , we are now doing that."

'Easy target'

Those comments are being seen as an attack on former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine.

But Liberal Democrat peer Lord Phillips of Sudbury accused Mr Blunkett of picking on lawyers as an easy target.

"It really is scandalous," he told BBC Radio 4's World At One. "The vast majority of solicitors do a thoroughly conscientious job."

In fact, pay rates for asylum cases were "appalling", argued Lord Phillips, whose own firm was considering stopping doing such work.

'Life or death'

Labour backbencher Vera Baird QC said the Legal Services Commission had powers to act against rogue advisers.

But she was worried by the new restrictions on legal aid and appeals.

"We do want a fair system and the decision on appeal can be the difference between life and death for a genuine asylum seeker," she said.

"Closing down legal aid or stopping that tier of appeals would certainly be throwing out the baby with the bath water."

 

============================================================

The recently home office amnesty has now been spelt out. It now explains clearly who was granted and who was not. See below:

Immigration bulletin from Refugee Council

Amnesty for Families

To: Kenya Community Support Network  from Refugee Council

(Persons with Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR )please read and note paragraph 6)

Below text of Policy note recently circulated by the Home Office which should shortly be on their website.

The process has already begun - letters are being sent to eligible families and they request people not to enquire about it as this will hold up the process.

They estimate the whole process will take 6 months. You will see that the key factor is that to be eligible there has to be at least one dependent child resident in the UK prior to 2nd October 2000.

Anybody not benefiting from this policy will simply have their case dealt  with as before. There is no question of suddenly losing entitlements.
Two problem areas have been identified - what if your appeal comes up before you get your letter granting you Indefinite leave to Remain (ILR) - should you proceed? We were assured at a meeting yesterday that the Home Office had informed the IAA of this policy, and are liaising on its implementation, so the question should not arise - i.e. it should be picked up prior to any hearing (that said Henry Hodge , the Chief Adjudicator couldn't answer this question when asked last Wednesday - hopefully he can now!)

People who have had some form of temporary leave such as ELR are not eligible - even if it has now expired. It was pointed out that this places such people in a worse position than someone who never had any leave (an hence who possibly had a weaker claim). They acknowledged this was an anomaly and undertook to think about it.

Anybody in these sorts of circumstances needs to consult their lawyer.

Refugee Council
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Home Office Policy Note: One-off exercise to allow families who have been in the UK for three or more years to stay
Introduction

This note sets out the general policy for granting indefinite leave to remain or enter, exceptionally outside the Immigration Rules, as a result of the concession announced by the Home Secretary on 24 October 2003 to allow families who have been in the UK for three or more years to stay (the "concession" henceforth).

Basic Criteria of the Concession

The basic criteria for deciding whether or not a family will qualify for the exercise are:

… The applicant applied for asylum before 2nd October 2000; and
… The applicant has at present at least one dependant in UK currently aged under 18 who has been living in UK since 2nd October 2000.
Application for asylum

The initial claim for asylum must have been made before 2nd October 2000.

Families will be eligible for the concession where (i) the application has not yet been decided, (ii) has been refused and is subject to an appeal hearing or (iii) has been refused and there is no further avenue of appeal but the applicant has not been removed.

Families will not be eligible if after refusal of that initial claim they have been removed or have made a voluntary departure.
Dependants for the purpose of qualifying for the concession

For the purpose of determining whether the basic criteria of the concession are met, a dependant is a child of the applicant, or child of the applicant's spouse, who was under eighteen on 24 October 2003, and who at that date was financially and emotionally dependant on the applicant.

Caseworkers should also be satisfied that the dependant:

… is related as claimed to the principal applicant;
… has been dependent on the principal applicant since 2nd October 2000; and
… has formed part of the family unit in the UK  since 2nd October 2000.

Caseworkers must be satisfied that the dependant has been living in the UK since 2nd October 2000 (as a dependant and as part of the family unit).  Normally evidence on the asylum file of the dependant prior to the date of the announcement will be sufficient.  If the dependant was born in the UK and is not listed on the asylum file, a UK birth certificate will be key evidence.

Where a dependant is not listed on the file and was not born in the UK, strong evidence will be required to satisfy a caseworker that a dependency relationship does exist and that the dependant has been living in the UK since 2nd October 2000 as part of the family unit.

Granting leave in line to dependants

All members of the family who meet the basic criteria for the concession should be granted ILR.

For the purpose of granting leave to other members of the family, a dependant is the spouse or child of the main applicant, or child of the spouse, who was  dependent on the principal applicant on 24 October 2003; and formed part of the family unit on 24 October 2003.

Caseworkers should be satisfied that the dependants:

… are related as claimed to the principal applicant;
… were dependent on the principal applicant on 24 October 2003; and
… formed part of the family unit on 24 October 2003.

Caseworkers must be satisfied that the dependant was living in the UK prior to the date of the announcement. Normally evidence on the asylum file of the dependant prior to the date of the announcement will be sufficient.  If the dependant was born in the UK and is not listed on the asylum file, a UK birth certificate will be key evidence. If the dependant claims to be married to the applicant but is not listed on the file, a UK marriage certificate will be key evidence.

Leave will be granted to any dependants of the main applicant who come within the definition and were in the UK at the date of the announcement.

Where a dependant is not listed on the file and was not born in the UK strong evidence will be required to satisfy a caseworker that a dependency relationship does exist and the dependant was living in the UK as part of the family unit before the date of the announcement.
 

Exclusions

The concession will not apply to a family where the principal applicant or any of the dependants (using the definition of a dependant as above in "granting leave in line to dependants):

… have a criminal conviction,
… have or have had an anti-social behaviour order or sex offender order,
… have made (or attempted to make) an application for asylum in the UK in more than one identity,
… should have their asylum claim considered by another country (i.e. they are the subject of a possible third country removal);
… present a risk to security;
… fall within the scope of Article 1F of the Refugee Convention; or
… whose presence in the UK is otherwise not conducive to the public good.

Criminal convictions

A criminal conviction means a conviction for any crime committed in the UK or abroad which was not spent on the date of the announcement.  For the purposes of this concession, the same rules for spent UK convictions will apply to convictions received abroad.

A criminal conviction in the UK becomes spent after a period of time following conviction, depending on the length of the sentence.  Caseworkers should consult senior caseworker about excluding applicants on the basis of a criminal conviction.

Where criminal investigations are in train, or when court proceedings are pending, no decision should be taken on the case until the outcome is known.

Multiple identities

Applicants who, subsequent to the initial application for asylum, fraudulently made or attempted to make a fresh claim for asylum, in a different identity are excluded.
This exclusion category does not cover applicants who changed their name/other details during the consideration of their claim providing they did not attempt to mislead IND into believing they were applying as a new individual (i.e. they did not pretend they were a different person from the person who made the original claim).


End of Bulletin:
--

============================================================

 

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE QUEEN'S SPEECH

Tony Blair is facing the prospect of a rebellion on two fronts over the government's legislative programme laid out in the Queen's Speech.  At least 120 backbench Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion criticising plans to charge university students up to £3,000 a year in top-up fees.  Tough measures against asylum seekers have also been widely condemned.  Liberal Democrats and Tories said they would oppose moves to take the children of failed applicants into care.  Under new plans universities will be free to charge up to £3,000 for courses.  The fees will only be paid back once students have graduated, started work, and are earning more than £15,000 a year. Here is the full list of 23 bills and seven draft bills included in the 2003 Queen's Speech. (Click here for full information)

 

============================================================

 

Asylum child care plan condemned

Plans to take failed asylum seekers' children into government care if they refuse to leave the country may breach the Human Rights Act, campaigners say.  Under the proposal, due to be announced on Wednesday, parents will be told to take paid-for "voluntary" flights home or lose their benefits and their children.

A Home Office spokesman said the move would protect children from action taken against their parents.

But campaigners say it could lead to costly court cases if challenged.

It is thought up to 2,000 children could be affected by the plan, to be included in the Queen's Speech as part of the controversial Asylum Bill.

The Home Office denied the move was draconian, insisting it was the "logical outcome of a managaed migration policy".

But pressure group Refugee Action said it was alarmed, calling the plan "inhumane and shameful in the way it targets children as a way of coercing parents to return".

Spokesman Stephen Rylance said it could breach family rights under the Human Rights Act, possibly sparking expensive legal action.

The policy meant that children who had already suffered the trauma of fleeing their homeland would then be put through the trauma of being separated from their parents, he said.

However, he told BBC News Online that parents could be "absolutely terrified" of returning to their own country and be forced into "desperate measures".

"Parents may believe that it is better for their children to be looked after by the state, and if they are genuinely afraid of returning then they may disappear altogether and have no contact with authorities."

Human rights group Liberty and the Refugee Council joined Refugee Action in attacking the plan.

But the Home Office issued a statement on Sunday defending its proposal, and insisted it would protect children.

It was "the only logical way of dealing with people who have no right to be in the country and therefore no right to public funding or accommodation, but who are simply refusing the organised offer of a paid return home", a spokesman said.

"The policy is not designed to make families destitute and we do not believe many, if any, people would put their children in this position.

"It is designed as an incentive for people to return voluntarily before removal is enforced.

"In rare cases where it is necessary to end support we would not want children to be made destitute as a result of the actions of their parents so provision would be made to take them into care."

But Liberty spokesman Barry Hugill said: "What this is all about is the government looking for soundbites to appear as if it's tough on a perceived problem. It doesn't need these powers.

"I think it is all rather distasteful to start concentrating on children in the hope that you will get good headlines saying how tough you are. It's rather unpleasant."

Amnesty

The Refugee Council said that "breaking up families harms children and should be done only when there is absolutely no alternative".

"The government should abandon this plan and work instead to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum system," a spokesman said.

He told BBC News Online the plan would be the fifth change to asylum legislation in the past decade, and called on the government to put in place "foundations that can endure".

The current system was expensive and there were unnecessary delays in making decisions, which made it "harder to remove people who had put down roots in the UK", he added.

News of the plan comes after Home Secretary David Blunkett announced in October that up to 15,000 refugee families would be allowed to live and work in the UK in the biggest-ever asylum amnesty.

Other reform measures include the prosecution of asylum seekers arriving in the UK without travel documents, restricting the number of appeals to one, and a crackdown on unqualified legal advisers who "abuse" the system.

 

 

 

 

HOME OFFICE PRESS RELEASE

Effectively managed migration is good for Britain - Home Secretary
[12 November 2003]

309/2003

EFFECTIVELY MANAGED MIGRATION IS GOOD FOR BRITAIN - HOME SECRETARY

Effectively managed legal migration is vital to Britain's economic and social interests, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, will argue in a speech this evening.

Legal migrants make up eight per cent of the UK's population but generate 10 per cent of our gross domestic product. The Government wants to ensure a balanced debate and is keen to emphasise the important contribution made by legal migrants.

Mr Blunkett will set out the Government's balanced approach - tough measures to tackle abuse of the asylum system and illegal immigration, while at the same time working to build tolerance and enthusiasm for legal migration.

The Home Office also announced that a new website, giving clear information about the rules and regulations for businesses and those who want to come to the UK to work legally, will go live next month.

Mr Blunkett said:

“Migration is only one facet of the broader phenomenon of globalisation which is shaping the modern world, and I believe it will be seen as one of the great challenges of our time. Managing this in Britain's best interests means neither pulling up the drawbridge nor opening the floodgates.

“I am trying to steer a balanced course between these extremes. There must be controls and regulation. There must be rules which offer fair treatment to those who are fleeing persecution, but which are resistant to abuse, and which balance the rights of the individuals with the rights of society.

“That is why we have strengthened our borders and put in place a more robust asylum system. Asylum claims have been halved, record numbers are being removed and the number of people waiting for a decision is the lowest for a decade.

“There have also been big hits on trafficking and illegal working. Identity cards are the long term solution, but right now we are scaling up enforcement activity. Since April this year 20 criminal gangs have been disrupted, 16 facilitators convicted. Last month, a series of operations in Sussex saw 49 illegal workers picked up. Forty five have since been removed from the UK. These are only examples of the step-change we have made.

“Progress in all these areas is vital to the second strand of our policy - encouraging legal, managed migration where this is good for our economy. Migrants make a disproportionate contribution to the wealth of the UK, accounting for eight per cent of the population but 10 per cent of our gross domestic product - and 20 per cent more likely to be self-employed.

“No modern, successful country can afford to adopt an anti-immigration policy. It is in all our interests to harness the innovation, skills and productivity that new migrants can bring.

“If we are to achieve flexibility and sustainable growth, then legal migration, as opposed to clandestine working, must be the way forward.

“I want to lead a debate that lifts our sights above the difficulties of asylum and illegal immigration, and enhances public understanding of the benefits of legal migration, as well as the need for integration for those who stay.

“Learning English is an important part of this, as a stepping-stone on the way to full and active participation in the labour market and the wider community. But integration is also about helping those who settle here to understand the meaning of becoming a British citizen and the rights and responsibilities that brings.”

Home Office research has shown that legal migrants contribute £2.5 billion more in taxes than they consume in services and have little or no adverse affect on the wages or employment levels of the existing population.

The primary route for economic migration to the UK is through the work permit system. Employers must apply for a work permit for a specific vacancy and demonstrate they cannot fill the post with a domestic worker. In 2002, 136,000 work permits were granted, three times the number in 1997. This year Work Permits UK expect to issue 175,000. The UK has established two new sector based schemes for the hospitality and manufacturing sectors where there are recruitment difficulties. These will allow 20,000 permits to be issued as part of this total. We have also introduced a separate Highly Skilled Migrant Programme designed to attract the top talent to the UK.

 

 

 

Asylum seekers arriving in the UK without travel documents could be prosecuted under government plans unveiled on Monday.

Immigration officials say most asylum seekers arrive without documentation and some destroy their passports en route to conceal their nationalities.

The plan is one of the measures set out in a consultation paper.

Others include restricting asylum seekers whose applications are rejected to a single appeal, and a new crackdown on unqualified legal advisers who "abuse" the system.

The proposals for a new asylum bill, expected to form part of the Queen's Speech next month, follow the Home Office's biggest asylum amnesty.

On Friday, it announced 15,000 asylum seekers and their families - an estimated 50,000 refugees - could live and work in Britain indefinitely because it has taken so long for their cases to go through the courts.

The appeal system has already been reformed once since those cases began more than three years ago.

But during his Labour Party conference speech in Bournemouth last month, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the current "ludicrously complicated" system still allowed for too much "judicial interference".

Announcing the new proposals on Monday, Home Secretary David Blunkett said: "We must now speed up the appeals process.

"Too often unscrupulous and unqualified legal advisers are encouraging claimants to lodge appeal after appeal with no prospect of success, all at taxpayers' expense."

Appeal changes

As well as the single tier of appeal, the asylum regulator will get new powers to take action against legal advisers who give advice on how to "defraud" the system.

Under the current system, asylum seekers can appeal to an adjudicator and then, with permission, to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. The courts can also be a final option.

The proposed changes would mean there would only be one appeals tribunal and the government also wants to restrict access to the higher courts. Those plans are likely to provoke challenges from asylum help groups and sceptics are asking how ministers will prevent the plans leading to more rather than fewer judicial reviews. Other proposals include:

• Making airlines on certain routes copy passengers' passports before they depart

   

• Deporting more quickly those who have already claimed asylum in safe third countries

   

• Ending benefits of families who are able but unwilling to return home when their asylum claim fails

   

• Making it a criminal offence to advertise or offer immigration advice without proper qualifications

   

• Giving the asylum regulator the right to enter solicitors' offices and order documents to be handed over when they are handling a complaints.

Mr Blunkett said most asylum seekers claimed not to have travel documents, despite needing them to board a plane in the first place. "The fact is, many destroy them en route because traffickers tell them it's their best chance of staying in the UK - by making fraudulent claims and making it difficult to remove them if their claims fail," he said. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the new proposals had "the feel of the Home Office panicking". "They were soft on asylum on Friday and needed to seem tough on Monday to balance things out," he said. Mr Oaten appealed for firmness and consistency, not a policy "based on tabloid headlines and focus group language". Conservative shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said only the details would show whether the measures would work. "I'm not optimistic that the present system can be created by adding layer after layer of legislation," said Mr Letwin. The Tories want the current system scrapped completely and replaced with processing asylum claims overseas. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, told BBC News Online: "These are tentative steps in the right direction, several of which we have advocated."David Blunkett will have to wade through a flood of legalistic objections in this effort to curb widespread abuses of the legal system." But the plans to end benefits for families able to return home were denounced by the Crossroads Coalition for Justice for Asylum Seekers. "With winter setting in and many already sleeping rough, Mr Blunkett has announced that the government will be putting asylum seeker families, including children, out on the street," said the group.

 

15,000 asylum families 'can stay'

24th October, 2003

Up to 15,000 refugee families could get permission to live and work in the UK as part of Britain's biggest-ever asylum amnesty, it has been announced.

Home Secretary David Blunkett said the majority of those being granted leave to remain - about 30,000, including children - were currently subsisting on benefits. Granting permission to work would lift a burden from taxpayers. But Conservative home affairs spokesman Oliver Letwin said the move sent out the wrong signal and people would be "appalled". "It cannot be right, while the system still remains in total chaos, to send out a signal that 15,000 people who have failed to establish a claim will be allowed to remain indefinitely. "This amnesty is a result of the government's failure to deport failed asylum seekers in significant numbers. "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." Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This is a welcome decision, but the Home Office should never have allowed the backlog to occur." Mr Blunkett said the families involved - from Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Turkey - had sought asylum in the UK more than three years ago.

'One off'

The move comes ahead of the final stages of a government shake-up of the asylum system. Officials say the reforms - which will end all future support for families refused asylum - will ensure the system is not open to abuse or delays. So-called "hard case" applicants will only be given benefits if they agree to comply with the removal process once it becomes possible for them to go home. 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 taxpayer's money on support and legal aid. "These are difficult decisions but I do not believe it is the best use of taxpayer's money to take these expensive longstanding individual appeals through the courts. "I want to ensure our relentless focus is on steadily increasing the proportion of failed asylum seekers removed from now on." The home secretary added that his decision was a "one-off exercise" that would end the uncertainty suffered by many families.

Saved money?

Official figures show that the taxpayer is currently supporting 12,000 families who applied for asylum prior to October 2000. The Home Office said that moving 1,000 of them off benefits "will save £15m in support costs in addition to any potential savings on legal aid". Up to 3,000 families who are self-supporting could also qualify to stay in the UK. A spokesman said: "The families will be given the immigration status of "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK which means they are able to live and work here without restrictions." The decision to end support for families denied asylum was intended to remove the "incentive" for people to delay being removed from the UK. It would save money in support and legal costs, the spokesman added.

'Ineffective'

Those measures were welcomed by the Tories. "I welcome measures designed to improve the lamentably ineffective removal system for those who have been unable to demonstrate any claim to asylum," said Mr Letwin. For the Lib Dems, Mr Oaten said the government should make every effort in the future to make sure the children were not left in limbo. Margaret Lally, of the Refugee Council, welcomed the government's decision, adding that without it, the people concerned would not have been dealt with until 2008. Sandy Buchan, Refugee Action's chief executive, welcomed the "sensible decision", but said it was "harsh" to end support for families denied asylum. MigrationwatchUK chairman, Sir Andrew Green said the amnesty was not so much "clearing the decks" as "abandoning" ship. "The message to asylum seekers is clear - 'remain here illegally for long enough and we will give you permission to stay'."

 

Clearing the decks for tough new asylum measures - Home Secretary
[24 October 2003]

295/2003

CLEARING THE DECKS FOR TOUGH NEW ASYLUM MEASURES - HOME SECRETARY

Prior to the introduction of tough new rules to build on the tremendous progress already made in halving the number of asylum seekers entering Britain this year, longstanding and highly expensive family asylum claims will be eligible for leave to remain, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced today.

Up to fifteen thousand families who sought asylum in the UK more than three years ago, the majority of whom are being supported by the taxpayer, will be considered for permission to live and work here. 

The move comes ahead of the final stages of the Government's reforms of the asylum system which will ensure it is not open to delays and abuse in the future.

New measures, also announced today, would end all future support for families who have been refused asylum if they refuse to take up the offer of a voluntary, paid route home.  In addition, we are exploring how we might attach new conditions to Section 4 - “hardcase” - support to ensure it is only paid to those who agree to comply with the removal process when it becomes possible for them to go home.  These measures will send a clear signal that people refused asylum from now on must leave the UK. 

The one-off exercise for families will apply to those who sought asylum in the UK before 2 October 2000, had children before that date and who have suffered from historical delays in the system. It is likely to include some families whose children have been in the UK for seven years, who are already entitled to apply for leave to remain here under an existing concession.

The exercise will apply, in addition, to cases where the final appeals process has not been exhausted and to those where final decisions were made but removal was not effected.  People who have committed a criminal offence, lodged multiple asylum applications or whose cases are the responsibility of countries elsewhere in Europe will be excluded from the exercise. 

Mr Blunkett said:

“Over the last few years, the Government has delivered enormous improvements to the asylum system - speeding up decision making, introducing electronic fingerprinting, closing Sangatte and moving the UK's borders abroad to tackle illegal immigration and reduce the number of asylum claims.

 

CLEARING THE DECKS FOR TOUGH NEW ASYLUM MEASURES – HOME SECRETARY

Reference: 295/2003 - Date: 24 Oct 2003 10:57

Prior to the introduction of tough new rules to build on the tremendous progress already made in halving the number of asylum seekers entering Britain this year, longstanding and highly expensive family asylum claims will be eligible for leave to remain, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced today.

Up to fifteen thousand families who sought asylum in the UK more than three years ago, the majority of whom are being supported by the taxpayer, will be considered for permission to live and work here.

The move comes ahead of the final stages of the Government’s reforms of the asylum system which will ensure it is not open to delays and abuse in the future.

New measures, also announced today, would end all future support for families who have been refused asylum if they refuse to take up the offer of a voluntary, paid route home. In addition, we are exploring how we might attach new conditions to Section 4 - "hardcase" - support to ensure it is only paid to those who agree to comply with the removal process when it becomes possible for them to go home. These measures will send a clear signal that people refused asylum from now on must leave the UK.

The one-off exercise for families will apply to those who sought asylum in the UK before 2 October 2000, had children before that date and who have suffered from historical delays in the system. It is likely to include some families whose children have been in the UK for seven years, who are already entitled to apply for leave to remain here under an existing concession.

The exercise will apply, in addition, to cases where the final appeals process has not been exhausted and to those where final decisions were made but removal was not effected. People who have committed a criminal offence, lodged multiple asylum applications or whose cases are the responsibility of countries elsewhere in Europe will be excluded from the exercise.

Mr Blunkett said:

"Over the last few years, the Government has delivered enormous improvements to the asylum system – speeding up decision making, introducing electronic fingerprinting, closing Sangatte and moving the UK’s borders abroad to tackle illegal immigration and reduce the number of asylum claims.

"I have not been afraid to take the difficult decisions and we now have some of the toughest laws in Europe to deter abuse of the system. As a result asylum claims have halved and the backlog of cases is the lowest for a decade. And we are driving forward with legislation at the earliest opportunity to deal with the remaining parts of the system in need of substantial reform.

"However, the legacy of the historic inadequacies of the system is still with us. This does not manifest itself only in statistics but in the lives of real families in our communities. As the Chief Inspector of Schools said earlier this week, children from asylum-seeking families are especially motivated and doing well in schools. MPs from all sides appeal to me for such families to be allowed to stay in the UK every week.

"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 taxpayer’s money on support and legal aid. These are difficult decisions but I do not believe it is the best use of taxpayer’s money to take these expensive longstanding individual appeals through the courts. I want to ensure our relentless focus is on steadily increasing the proportion of failed asylum seekers removed from now on.

"The applications of this group pre-date the introduction of a simplified appeals process to prevent people lodging new appeals against removal on human rights grounds. This additional layer of appeal has now been ended for new cases and we are bringing forward further measures to curtail the level of appeals and money spent on legal aid.

"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."

The Home Office is currently supporting 12,000 families who applied for asylum before October 2000. It is believed that the vast majority will qualify for leave to remain in the UK under the terms of the exercise. Moving even 1,000 of them off support will save £15million in support costs in addition to any potential savings on legal aid. Up to 3,000 families who are self-supporting may also qualify. The families will be given the immigration status of "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK which means they are able to live and work here without restrictions.

The Home Office will write to those who are eligible for leave to remain under the exercise and is not encouraging people to enquire directly. It is expected to take about six months to assess the bulk of those who may be eligible.

The new power to withdraw support from families who fail to take up the offer of a paid, voluntary route home builds on existing powers to remove support from those who do not comply with enforced removal directions. It is designed to remove the current incentive for families to delay removal as long as possible and so save money in support and legal costs.

Notes for editors

1. Many of the people whose claims were not initially dealt with in the first six months were, and remain, eligible to work and many of those will have jobs.
2. The Home Office removed almost 15,000 failed asylum seekers in 2002/03, an increase of 29 per cent on the previous year.
3. In the same period, the Home Office exceeded targets to speed up decision making – with almost three quarters of new applications decided within two months. Two years ago, less than a quarter were decided in two months.
4. People with Indefinite Leave to Remain status who commit criminal offences can have their leave revoked and be removed from the UK.
5. These measures will cut overall costs to the taxpayer and the Home Office will work with other Government departments and local authorities to manage any extra costs falling to them as a result.

 

50,000 to stay under asylum amnesty
24 October 2003

An estimated 50,000 refugees could be allowed to stay in the UK indefinitely thanks to the Home Office's biggest-ever asylum amnesty.

Up to 15,000 asylum seeker families will be eligible for the deal in a bid to save support payments and legal aid, Home Secretary David Blunkett said.

The announcement came on a day when no Home Office Minister was available in London to answer questions on the asylum giveaway, which also coincided with Concorde's final flight.

Most of the families are failed asylum seekers who have exhausted the main appeals process but have not yet been deported, Mr Blunkett's official spokesman said.

The Conservatives said the amnesty would make Britain a "magnet" for asylum seekers.

Mr Blunkett conceded 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 October 2, 2000, had children before that date and who have "suffered from historical delays in the system".

The Home Office is currently supporting 12,000 families who applied for asylum before that date.

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

Up to 3,000 families who are currently not claiming asylum benefits - and are working illegally - may also qualify.

 

Home Office wins asylum support case

London 23rd September, 2003

The Court of Appeal has ruled the Home Office was right to refuse benefits to an asylum seeker under controversial legislation introduced this year.

In an important victory for the Home Office, the court said ministers had acted within their powers to deny support to a Malaysian man who had been sleeping rough at Heathrow Airport.

The ruling is part of an on-going battle between refugee groups and the government over contentious legislation which denies food and shelter to those who do not immediately apply for asylum.

Immigration minister Beverley Hughes welcomed the ruling as a victory for policies that tighten up asylum rules - but campaigners predicted they would continue to challenge the legislation.

Destitution

The Court of Appeal heard how "T", arrived in the UK in March and had been sleeping rough in Heathrow Airport since April after his application for benefits was denied.

Under the controversial "Section 55" immigration rules introduced in January, the government can refuse benefits to asylum seekers who do not apply immediately at their port of arrival.

T had applied for asylum six days after arriving.

At his hearing in July, his lawyers argued his subsequent destitution following a rejection for support amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment under the Human Rights Act.

'Tough action'

But the Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday Home Secretary David Blunkett was "within his rights" to deny the man assistance because although he was sleeping rough, he still had access to food and shelter.

This meant, the court ruled, the refusal of assistance was not inhuman or degrading.

Ms Hughes welcomed the decision, saying: "The government has taken tough action to ensure that the asylum system in the United Kingdom is not open to misuse.

"Section 55 is a vital part of the package of measures that has seen asylum applications fall by half since last autumn.

She said this section of the legislation would continue to be operated in a "fair and robust manner."

"This judgement reinforces the message that those who do not claim asylum as soon as possible cannot expect to be supported merely because they assert they have no means of supporting themselves."

'More cases to come'

But the Refugee Council said the Home Office had only appealed against one of three test cases won in July - because ministers knew they faced defeat on human rights grounds had they challenged the other two.

Anna Reisenberger of the Refugee Council said: "This is a disappointing result for the thousands of asylum seekers affected by the Government's draconian asylum legislation, which will continue to leave asylum seekers homeless, hungry and begging for handouts.

Ms Reisenberger said charities, mosques, churches and refugee communities were being inundated with pleas for help.

"It is unfathomable why the Government is so intent on deliberately leaving vulnerable people destitute, when it should focus its resources and attention on deciding whose life is in danger and should be offered sanctuary," she said.

Sheona York, of the Hammersmith Law Centre which was involved in the challenge, said: "This decision will not do anything for the several hundreds of asylum seekers in a Section 55 backlog who are now faced with having to sleep rough and beg before being able to apply for help.

"We will continue to be inundated by desperate calls from clients for help.

"We and others will continue to apply for injunctions until this infamous Section 55 is repealed."

 

WHAT THE GUARDIAN SAYS

15,000 families granted asylum

Press Association
Friday October 24, 2003
 

The government announced today that it would grant asylum to 15,000 families with longstanding claims in order to clear a backlog of cases and cut costs.

The families, who have been waiting for more than three years in the UK, will be granted indefinite leave to remain. The arrangement will allow the families to work - banned for asylum seekers - thus lightening the cost of taxpayer support.

Families who have failed in their asylum applications but have not yet been removed from Britain will be eligible for the deal, a Home Office spokeswoman said. This would avoid them drawing out the process even further by making appeals on human rights grounds.

The home secretary, David Blunkett, simultaneously announced tough new measures to end all benefits for families who have been denied asylum if they refuse to take up the offer of a voluntary, free flight home.

The "one-off" offer will apply to families who sought asylum in the UK before October 2 2000, had children before that date and who have "suffered from historical delays in the system". The families were largely from Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Turkey, he said. They were mainly living in London and the south-east, costing £15,000 a year per family to support.

Mr Blunkett's official spokesman said that it was impossible 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 Home Office currently supports 12,000 families who applied for asylum before the cut-off date. Moving all 12,000 off asylum support will save £180m in support costs, plus additional savings in legal aid. In addition, up to 3,000 families who are currently not claiming asylum benefits may also qualify.

Once they have been granted leave to remain in the UK the families will be eligible for mainstream benefits. The spokeswoman said the Home Office will write to those eligible for the scheme, with most being assessed in the next six months.

People who have committed a criminal offence or lodged multiple asylum applications will be excluded from the deal. Refugees who have previously made an asylum claim in another European country will also be ineligible.

The deal was likely to include some families whose children have been in the UK for seven years, the spokeswoman said.

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 taxpayer's money to take these expensive longstanding individual appeals through the courts.

"I want to ensure our relentless focus is on steadily increasing the proportion of failed asylum seekers removed from now on. 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."

The shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, said the plan highlighted the government's failure to deport failed asylum seekers and would "appal" the British people.

"It cannot be right, while the system still remains in total chaos, to send out a signal that 15,000 people who have failed to establish a claim will be allowed to remain indefinitely," he 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."

"A Conservative government would scrap the current system in its entirety, and replace it with a system of quotas for genuine refugees and the offshore processing of all claims, to deter all but genuine claims for protection from persecution," Mr Letwin added.

Nick Pearce, director of leftwing thinktank 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, who can now plan a settled future in the UK with confidence."

Keith Best, chief executive of the independent Immigration Advisory Service, said: "We have long said that the only way to make a fresh start is to grant a kind of amnesty for people already in the country.

"This is the inevitable humanitarian response to an increasing number of people who may not fit the strict definition of persecution under the Refugee Convention, but nevertheless are unable to return home because of conflict of other difficulties," he said.

WHAT THE INDEPENDENT  SAYS

50,000 to stay in UK under asylum seeker amnesty

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent, PA News

24 October 2003

An estimated 50,000 refugees could be allowed to stay in the UK indefinitely thanks to the Home Office's biggest-ever asylum amnesty, it was announced today.

Up to 15,000 asylum seeker families will be eligible for the deal in a bid to save support payments and legal aid, Home Secretary David Blunkett said.

The announcement came on a day when no Home Office Minister was available in London to answer questions on the asylum giveaway, which also coincided with Concorde's final flight.

Most of the families are failed asylum seekers who have exhausted the main appeals process but have not yet been deported, Mr Blunkett's official spokesman said.

The Conservatives said the amnesty would make Britain a "magnet" for asylum seekers.

Mr Blunkett conceded 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, had children before that date and who have "suffered from historical delays in the system".

The Home Office is currently supporting 12,000 families who applied for asylum before that date.

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

Up to 3,000 families who are currently not claiming asylum benefits - and are working illegally - may also qualify.

Once they have been granted leave to remain in the UK the families will be eligible for mainstream benefits.

People who have committed a criminal offence or lodged multiple asylum applications will be excluded from the deal.

So-called "asylum shoppers" who have previously made an asylum claim in another European country will also be ineligible.

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.

"I want to ensure our relentless focus is on steadily increasing the proportion of failed asylum seekers removed from now on.

"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."

The families will be given the immigration status of "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK which means they will be able to live and work without restrictions.

Mr Blunkett's official spokesman said that it was impossible 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.

They were mainly living in London and the South East, costing £15,000 a year per family to support.

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

When children were taken into account, it would be larger than the 21,500 given amnesty by previous Home Secretary Jack Straw in 1998-1999, which had been designed to remove "people who had been stuck in the system for a long time".

Another large programme took place under the Conservative government between 1991 and 1994, when 32,300 people were allowed to stay in the UK, he added.

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 need primary legislation in 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.

"We have spent a lot of money on these schemes, but the response has not been as good as we thought it should be," he said.

"Having offered a bit of carrot, there is a need for a bit more stick."

People granted indefinite leave to remain can claim British citizenship after five years, or three years if they marry a British citizen.

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver 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.

"This amnesty is a result of the Government's failure to deport failed asylum seekers in significant numbers.

"The British people will be appalled at this latest sign of the Government's abject failure to sort out the chaos in the asylum system."

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."

 

 

Blunkett targets nuisance neighbours in the UK

Neighbours who spoil the lives of law-abiding people in their communities will face tough action in a new campaign, Home Secretary David Blunkett has promised.

Under plans announced earlier this year, the worst offenders could be relocated, while others could see their tenancy contracts reduced from 12 to six months, be sent to parenting classes or issued with fixed penalty notices. On Tuesday, Mr Blunkett and Prime Minister Tony Blair set out a new action plan to enforce the measures, which also target beggars and abandoned cars. The plans targets 10 "trailblazer" areas - places which will receive support from the government's anti-social behaviour unit to address problems in their communities. Four of the areas will focus on nuisance neighbours, five on begging and two on abandoned cars.

A series of "expert" panels will be set up, linking professionals in areas such as crime reduction, health and social services, to help address the issues. Sentencing guidelines have also been agreed with magistrates. And a new phone line and website to give advice to local agencies trying to tackle nuisance behaviour is also to be launched early next year.

Gang escalation

At the launch, Mr Blair said if the new legislation was not enough, he would introduce new powers. But he said it was unacceptable for powers to be used in one part of the country but not in others. He said: "To the police, housing officers, local authorities - we've listened, we've given you the powers, and it's time to use them... "We owe it to the victims of anti-social behaviour - often the poorest in society - to get our act together."

Mr Blunkett, who is calling for a "step change" in efforts against nuisance behaviour, said the scheme was not about "bashing" young people. He went on: "There is no point in this garbage from the '60s and '70s about being non-judgemental. You can't be non-judgemental when you are living next door to the family from hell." People who failed to do the job at local level had to be held to account, he argued. Earlier, Mr Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that action against anti-social behaviour had to be taken by local councils but with coordination, funding and legislation from central government.

He said the plans were designed to make sure "that when the police, housing officers and environmental health do their job, the courts don't let them down". He wants police, with local councils' agreement, to be able to disperse gangs as soon as they see them.

Begging concerns

Adam Sampson, from homelessness charity Shelter, warned ministers not to play politics with short term punitive measures against beggars rather than tackling the causes. The home secretary agreed that preventive measures were needed and said begging was only a "tiny" part of the plans but needed to be tackled. Jan Berry, head of the Police Federation, said: "It is extremely frustrating for police officers to try to remove some of these young people from the streets when all they see is them going back onto the streets with no real sanction taking place."

Kevin Morris, head of the Police Superintendent's Association of England and Wales, said ministers should leave officers to work out with local leaders how to tackle problems on the ground. The action plan aims to build on the government's flagship Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which should become law by the New Year, and the work of its Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, which has been touring Britain since it was set up in January.

Alcohol treatment

At the conference used for the launch, Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore, told how violent crime had been cut in what was the most violent city in America in 1999. In one of the "trailblazer" areas, Louise Casey, director of the anti-social behaviour unit, found that 300 people at one public meeting were complaining about only three nuisance families. In "trailblazer" areas, nuisance neighbours could find themselves enlisted on parenting classes, losing their right to buy their council home, having their tenancy contract curtailed, given advice on housing or issues relating to alcohol.

Begging will become a recordable offence so that numbers of incidents are logged. Offenders could then face drug or alcohol treatment. Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin questioned whether the scheme was "just another headline-grabbing initiative, or whether it will bring lasting improvement". Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten said tackling nuisance behaviour had to go beyond just catching and excluding culprits and should find ways to bring offenders back into the law-abiding community.

 

 

Kenyans Spearhead Online Travel Revolution

Two Kenyans based in Bedfordshire, (UK) are spearheading what might become a revolution in the travel industry through establishing user-friendly online services and ‘Drop-in DIY cafes. It will herald a period of breaking away from the traditional way of booking our travelling tickets, hotels etc and putting in-place more accessible, efficient and cost effective reservation systems.

Worldtravelfare.com was created out inspirations of emerging travel software technology aimed at making travel services more efficient and cost effective. As more people become aware of the efficiency resulting from on-line travel services it is necessary to establish infrastructures to reduce the bureaucratic booking procedures most common in high street travel shops which can be frustrating and time consuming.

While travel services are moving away from the traditional paper booking procedures, such initiatives by worldtravelfare.com will provide in-place complete on-line booking engines and ‘one stop drop- in’ travel cafes situated strategically in the streets.

The idea to form Worldtravelfare.com was muted in early 2003 and it was the result of concerted efforts of two Kenyans with enormous training and experience in computer technology and tourism management respectively. These backgrounds became the principal motivations to starting a business in travel and tourism. Great support from Luton and Bedfordshire Chamber Business, Business link and UK Online business consultants provided guidelines and advise that helped incapacity building, research and fact finding.

In July 2003 the first phase of the project was already complete and worldtravelfare.com was launched in August.

The initial stage was putting our vision into a Business Plan, which is the blueprint and reference document for project. The business plan offers details on the project objectives, mission statement, resources, marketing plan, SWOT Analysis, cash flow and profit and loss analysis.

 This business project will be implemented in two phases. Phase one is the web designing and development, web hosting, software configuration and booking engine set up, accreditation, testing and promotion. A 24 hr telephone back-up line and email will be provided for support to customer queries.

 The second phase will involve setting up user-friendly street cafes with links set to Worldtravelfare.com web default. With one person manning the cafes, customers will drop-in by, browse through the website and make their own reservations for flights, hotels, holidays, car hire and obtain variable information about visas, arrivals and departures, world weather etc. Phase 2 will be gradual as it involves huge financial outlay, however we hope to have established a complete network of cafes in Bedfordshire by year 2006.

The uniqueness of this project (particularly phase 2) is that it will be the first of its kind in the UK and first major step in DIY travel solutions. A lot of collaborations with affiliate organisations such as in car hire, ferry, coach, travel insurance, hotels, airports, resorts and regulatory bodies will play a key role in making this idea a revolution in travel industry. It is expected that our ‘drop-in travel cafes’ will also attract tour operators and other producers to place their product’s information through worldtravelfare.com. We have also established business links with major air ticket consolidators such as Unijet and teamed up with Barclays Merchant Services for secure on-line payments.

Another significant aspect of this project is that it is an impetus to other enterprenuers from the minority community and especially the African and Carribbean who aspire to go into business. By taking up ideas and converting them into opportunities is a sure way of proving the ability of our communities in providing vital solutions in the community. Our pride in this project most of all is being in a competitive position among other business entrepreneurs by utilizing our knowledge regardless of social and environmental setbacks. 

With worldtravelfare.com customers are able to book their fights, hotels, holidays, hire cars and obtain comprehensive travelling information at the comfort of their home, office and at very competitive discounted rates. All staff at worldtravelfare would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit our on-line travel one stop shop and enjoy the low rates and a user-friendly service- Just log on www.worltravefare.com  - In case of contact email Lucy@worldtravelfare.com

 

 

Asylum seekers would be kicked out of Britain within six weeks

In UK, asylum seekers would be kicked out of Britain within six weeks of arriving, under tough new Tory proposals. The migrants would be denied legal aid and British judges would be taken out of the appeals process. All refugees would be dealt with inside six weeks, with those refused permission to stay getting only one opportunity to appeal. No appeals would go to UK courts, ensuring asylum seekers could no longer string out their stay for years. The controversial plans also prevent cases going to the European Court of Justice, which has a history of overruling British judges.

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin is studying the ideas which will be announced today in London.
They are among 20 hard-hitting recommendations in a report following a year-long study by former Home Office minister Timothy Kirkhope. Critics of Britain’s “soft-touch” asylum system will demand Mr Letwin includes them in Tory policy. Sources who had seen the Kirkhope document said last night: “These are very tough measures but tough problems demand serious answers. “These measures are designed to create a fair system for all. “Our system is being abused and British tolerance is being stretched and abused.” Preventing asylum seekers from using Britain’s courts and the legal aid system would save taxpayers millions. And it would stop lawyers from using the system to mount repeated appeals for bogus refugees which can last years.

However, the suggestions are bound to enrage human rights campaigners. If the Tories have their way, a new Independent Application Board will be appointed to deal with all asylum seekers and their single appeal. Everyone coming to the UK will have their travel documents photocopied or scanned in advance. This is designed to ensure that asylum cheats who destroy their documents on the journey can no longer fool immigration inspectors by lying about where they come from. Those arriving without valid papers currently trigger huge delays to their applications and make it virtually impossible to check their stories.

They often win “exceptional leave to remain” because officials cannot disprove claims they are fleeing persecution. The automatic right to full asylum would be ended, with successful applicants getting only temporary status instead. If the situation in their homeland improved within five years they would be sent back. Only “state persecution” would be taken as a legitimate reason for winning asylum. Asylum seekers could make their first application in Britain’s embassies around the world. The law would be changed so thousands fewer would wait until they arrived on our shores. The official Conservative policy of setting up application centres, to hold refugees until their cases are heard, also wins support. Britain is currently in the grip of a major asylum crisis, with more than 100,000 people flooding in each year. Only around one third is legally entitled to stay here but the remainder cost taxpayers billions in benefit costs.

Immigration chiefs manage to deport only a tiny amount of failed asylum seekers each year and thousands vanish to work illegally in shady businesses. Mr Kirkhope, a solicitor who led the Commission on Asylum, is a Tory MEP European spokesman on justice and home affairs. He was minister for asylum and immigration and responsible for race relations under John Major’s government. Others on the commission include Baroness Anelay, Tory Home Affairs spokesman in the Lords, and Nirj Deva, Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith’s adviser on ethnic affairs.

 

Citizenship classes for new Britons

Immigrants to the UK wishing to become British will take part in special language and citizenship classes from next year, under major proposals being unveiled by the government. The much-anticipated plans, a year in the making, are expected to radically overhaul how people become British by emphasising the "life changing" nature of the step - but also the responsibilities of the new citizen to the country. The system has been drawn up by a team of citizenship and nationality experts led by Professor Sir Bernard Crick, Home Secretary David Blunkett's former university tutor. Applicants would sit an exam at the end of the course, likely to be on a similar level to a driving test, Prof Crick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Failure would not affect their residency status - as they would already have definite leave to remain before qualifying for the course - but would prevent applicants from gaining a British passport and the right to vote. Mr Blunkett told the same programme: "I believe we need to build in youngsters at an early age a knowledge of their own society, their part in it and their citizenship.

"This is not a passive citizenship, such as voting occasionally, but an active one, where people make the world around them a better place by what they do and how they do it." The measures would "liberate" people trapped by their inability to communicate or interact with others, and counter far-right propaganda, he said. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes warned the government not to exclude groups of immigrants such as older people, who may have no tradition of education. But Mr Blunkett said it was "patronising" to suggest immigrants may not be able to improve their English and added disabled people would be exempt. He also denied the move would harm Britain's diversity.

Conservative home affairs spokesman Humfrey Malins said he backed the tests "in principle" but would study the proposals carefully. Plans to complete the citizenship process with celebratory local ceremonies at town halls are still being drafted. Mr Blunkett put forward the citizenship proposals in 2002 as part of the Home Office's flagship nationality and immigration legislation. The two key requirements of the scheme were that new citizens should have a "sufficient understanding of English, Welsh or Scots Gaelic" and a "sufficient understanding of UK society and civic structures". The home secretary said both elements should improve integration and a sense of belonging, rather than hinder the process of naturalisation.

Practical programme

In its interim report published earlier in the year, Sir Bernard's team said the language classes and teaching of British life should support two senses of citizenship - the legal process of naturalisation and responsibilities towards the rest of society. It recommended practical studies to progressively improve language skills for daily life. It proposed potential citizens should not be expected to reach a single standard of English. Instead, they should be credited for their progress in improving their knowledge of the language depending on how much they knew before they arrived. "We are not trying to define Britishness, we are trying to define what people need to settle in effectively," said Prof Crick. "One of the big objects of this report... is integration in the sense of people feeling secure in their own identities, but also sharing a wider identity."

 

The group also recommended new citizens should formally learn about key elements of British life including:

• Everyday needs such as gas and electricity companies
•  
• Education and the National Health Service

   

• How British democracy works

   

• Institutions from Parliament to local councils

The group also recommended a handbook for living in Britain. The third element, yet to be finalised, is proposals for special civic ceremonies welcoming those being naturalised. The Home Office says the ceremonies should emphasise the life-changing nature of the event and be family occasions involving friends, relatives and particularly children. The consultation on the ceremonies continues until 17 October.

 

Amazing Ugandan Asians in UK

Amazing Ugandan Asians in UK. They arrived in UK as refugees has been an incredible success here. Around 80,000 Asians were thrown out of Uganda in 1972 by dictator Idi Amin, who resented the wealth the hard-working community made from business. The UK welcomed 26,000. Families arrived with just £55 in their pockets but they are now the country’s most successful immigrant community. In the week Idi Amin died.

MEL HUNTER talks to some of them. TARIQUE GHAFFUR’s family of six arrived in Britain virtually penniless.  Today, as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, he earns up to £122,000 a year.

Tarique’s well-to-do family landed here in 1972. Forced to leave their building contracting company, they started again from scratch.

Tarique had to abandon his studies and find a job to help family finances. He joined the police and now he is Britain’s highest ranking Asian officer.

His three brothers are all successful businessmen. Tarique first worked in the Manchester force and he says: “They had never had a Muslim police officer before and on my first day they refused to believe I was a new recruit. They wouldn’t let me into the station.”

Now 48, and married with two children, he says: “I’ve never been back to Uganda and I now feel totally British.

“The country we lived in was beautiful and had great potential but it kicked us out. Why would we want to be there now?

“This country has been very good to us and we have also made our own contribution.

“When I arrived our whole ethos was about working. We wanted to work.”

He says the immigration situation today is very different.

“Unfortunately now there is unemployment, there is poverty in certain areas and there is a feeling that people are coming and exploiting good will.

“There is a huge amount of vulnerability among communities where most asylum seekers live. Within those there are very serious criminals who are exploiting their vulnerability.

“It is a small minority who are giving a bad name to all of them. Those communities want those people to be dealt with and that is what we must do.”

WHEN Prince Charles awarded Jaffer Kapasi an OBE in 1997 he told him he was impressed a refugee had achieved so much.

Jaffer, 51, Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire from 1999 to 2002, has indeed come a long way since arriving in Britain.

On that November morning in 1972, fresh off the plane from Uganda, he shivered in the cold.

“I thought I had a fever. You would only shiver in Africa if you were ill,” he remembers.

Arriving with his father, mother, four brothers and two sisters, the family had just £55 — all the families were allowed to take out of Uganda — in their pockets.

They left a beautiful home, servants and chauffeured cars in Uganda, plus the hardware firm that Jaffer’s father, Akbarali, had built up over 40 years.

When Idi Amin’s regime ordered them to flee the country within 90 days, they thought it was a joke.

“We thought it would never happen to us,” says dad-of-two Jaffer. Then the threats began and Jaffer, aged 19, knew it was time to leave. Once in the UK, Jaffer took A-levels then went to Sheffield University to study accountancy.

He was determined to rebuild the kind of life in Leicestershire his family had enjoyed in Uganda.

He says: “My father had a chauffeur in Uganda. Here it made me cry when I saw him queueing for buses.

“We were the middle class in Uganda but in Britain we had to start from scratch. We even had to learn how to do our shopping in Marks & Spencer.

“We wanted to be self-sufficient. We didn’t want to rely on handouts.”

Jaffer set up a financial consultancy business, working all the hours there were. Through sheer toil and determination he flourished.

In 1991 The Sun took the businessman back to his homeland but he knew he had built a better life here.

Jaffer has served as a head of the powerful Leicester Asian Business Association, working hard to bring Asian and British companies together.

His brothers own a hardware and DIY firm. His two sisters hold top positions at Nottingham University and a London council.

Jaffer is indebted to Britain and its people for allowing his family a second chance. He says: “We will always be grateful to the British for accepting us and treating us so well.

“Before my father died he said he would never forget their kindness. Britain is a land of opportunity where, if you work hard, you can achieve success.”

Jaffer worries that bogus asylum seekers are taking attention away from those who need help.

He says: “A lot of refugees are genuine. They want to come to a Western country because they are being persecuted where they come from.

“There are some, however, who have a reputation for sponging. Unfortunately we are all lumped together.”

KHALID SHEIKH will never forget being handed a biscuit by a smiling British woman on the day his family arrived from Uganda.

“That biscuit was priceless. It was love and affection at its greatest,” he says.

Khalid and his three younger brothers now run a multi-million-pound company in Leicester — which produces packaging for biscuits.

Yet 31 years ago they arrived in the city and were sleeping cheek-by-jowl with 15 members of their extended family in a tiny terraced house.

His father, widowed a year earlier, had been forced to leave a thriving clothing business and good standard of living behind.

He arrived in Britain with five children and took a job working nights in a Leicestershire plastics factory.

Khalid, now 45, went to school then Bristol Polytechnic to study accountancy and finance. Then he took a job with a Bristol packaging firm.

He says: “I stayed a few years, did well, then left and set up my own business. I have never looked back.”

Clifton Packaging is an award-winning business. Khalid landed his biggest deal, worth millions, while stuck in Las Vegas with the marketing director of Burton’s Biscuits in the aftermath of 9/11.

He now provides the packaging for the company’s products, such as Wagon Wheels.

Khalid, who is married with two children, Zain, 15, and Almeera, six, says: “Our success is all down to Britain, who gave us refuge in the greatest hour of our need. I am a pure Brit. I feel extremely grateful that I came here. This is my country, where my loyalty lies.

“My work takes me all over the world. But when I turn off the M1, I think, ‘This is what life is worth living for — the fertile soils of sunny Leicester’.”

On today’s asylum issue he says: “The majority of asylum seekers are genuine but there are people who abuse the system. That is sad because it reflects badly on people like us.” - The Sun.

 

UK 'turns corner' on asylum

A sharp drop in the numbers of people seeking asylum shows the UK has "turned the corner" in dealing with the problem, according to Tony Blair.  Britain was "now on track" to meet his target of halving asylum claims by September, the prime minister said at his monthly Downing Street news conference.  Mr Blair's comments came as Home Office figures showed a 32% fall in the number of people applying for asylum in Britain in the first three months of this year, down from 23,000 to 16,000. He said further legislation was being drawn up to tackle groundless asylum applications, the problem of asylum seekers destroying documentation and abuse of the legal aid system.

Mr Blair said the "relentless focus" had been on "cutting the number of asylum applications", with numbers falling by more than 45% since the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act was passed last year.

"So we remain fully on target to meet our pledge to cut applications by half by September. The figures also show that we are removing record numbers whose claims do not succeed," he said.

'Good news'

He dismissed accusations that the drop in asylum claims meant the government had some how "fiddled the figures".

"They are calculated the same way they have been for years and years and years," he said.

"Just as in the same way when asylum figures were rising no-one said the figures were fiddled, when they are falling, on exactly the same basis, people should take that as good news because it is."

Mr Blair also denied claims that asylum seekers were able to get visas or work permits "in order to change the figures".

"Employers apply for work permits - work permits aren't given to asylum seekers," he said.

Mr Blair was speaking just hours after Home Secretary David Blunkett angrily described as "liars" those suggesting the figures were massaged by giving more people work permits.

Mr Blunkett said the credibility of the statistics was "absolutely vital" in showing what was happening and whether the government's asylum policy was succeeding.

ID cards

Mr Blunkett said there was still "a mountain to climb", adding that he hoped to bring the controversial issue of identity cards to the cabinet for discussion "shortly".

ID cards would help him find out whether people were working and drawing on services legally, he suggested.

Keith Best, from the Immigration Advisory Service, said he feared many people coming to the UK were unaccounted for and "will therefore not be statistics that can be put on the front page of a newspaper".  Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said he was pleased to see the figures had gone down.

He argued that Conservative policies - such as changes in the benefits to asylum seekers - were now being followed by Labour.

But he told BBC Breakfast that he still had concerns about the reduction across the country.

"It may be some form of manipulation has occurred ... I cannot get a straight answer from ministers," he said.

Mr Letwin was sure the Home Office figures were accurate "within a smidgeon".

But it could be that asylum seekers were able to get visas or work permits "in order to change the figures", he said. Margaret Lally, of the Refugee Council, said: "A reduction in asylum numbers is hollow and meaningless if those affected are people fleeing persecution."

As efforts continue to reduce the UK's "pull factors", more than 60 failed asylum seekers were sent back to Kosovo on Thursday

The figures announced on Thursday are still much higher than when Labour came to power in 1997 - for the whole of that year 30,000 people applied for asylum in the UK.

Asylum claims reached a record total of 110,000 last year, prompting Mr Blair to announce his target of halving the number seen in October's figure of more than 9,000 applicants.

By December, the numbers had fallen to 6,670, with the government saying new measures introduced Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act were paying off.

Asylum claims fall sharply

22nd May, 2003

Home Secretary David Blunkett has angrily denied fiddling the figures after a sharp drop in the numbers of people seeking asylum in the UK.  Home Office figures show a 32% drop in the number of people applying for asylum in Britain in the first three months of this year, down from 23,000 to 16,000.  He described as "liars" those suggesting the figures had been massaged. Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to use a news conference to trumpet the figures as a sign that the government is on target to meet his target of halving asylum claims by September.

If they continue to claim that we have somehow fiddled the figures I will publicly describe them as liars and I will invite them to sue me   David Blunkett Home Secretary

Mr Blunkett also says he hopes to bring the controversial issue of identity cards to the cabinet "shortly", but he does not think they will be introduced before the next election.

Ex-Tory home office minister Ann Widdecombe questioned whether the figures were being fiddled by more work permits and other visas being given to people who would otherwise have been claiming asylum.

She claimed there "is more than one way of manipulating a target".

Going underground?

"I would be more inclined to accept these figures if we could get some answers about the number of work permits that have been issued, about the number of open ended visas that have been issued," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Asylum figures 16,000 asylum claims in first quarter of this year 23,385 asylum claims between October and December 2002 Asylum claims fall to 4,255 in February and 4,565 in March

Keith Best, speaking for the Immigration Advisory Service, said he feared many people coming to the UK were unaccounted for and "will therefore not be statistics that can be put on the front page of a newspaper".

Speaking on BBC Breakfast on Thursday the shadow home affairs secretary Oliver Letwin said he was "puzzled" at the reduction across the country.

"It may be some form of manipulation has occurred ... I cannot get a straight answer from ministers," he said.

Credibility 'vital'

But Mr Letwin said he was pleased to see the figures had gone down and said Conservative policies - such as changes in the benefits to asylum seekers - were now being followed by Labour.

However, he also said it could be that asylum seekers were able to get visas or work permits "in order to change the figures".

This prompted Mr Blunkett to warn: "If they continue to claim that we have somehow fiddled the figures I will publicly, not within the confines of Parliament, describe them as liars and I will invite them to sue me."

He said the credibility of the statistics was "absolutely vital" in showing what was happening and whether the government's asylum policy was succeeding.

He would give Miss Widdecombe "any answer she likes as to how many work permits were issued from the beginning of this year".

"They cannot claim that we have changed the methodology for compiling statistics - because we haven't."

Target

Mr Blunkett said ID cards would help him find out whether people were working and drawing on services legally.

"I don't think I will get them in this Parliament. I shall be putting my recommendations to Cabinet hopefully before this summer," he told Today.

The figures announced on Thursday are still much higher than when Labour came to power in 1997 - for the whole of that year 30,000 people applied for asylum in the UK.

Asylum claims reached a record total of 110,000 last year, prompting Mr Blair to announce his target of halving the number seen in October's figure of more than 9,000 applicants.

By December, the numbers had fallen to 6,670, with the government saying new measures introduced Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act were paying off.

 

 

Terror suspects could be held for twice as long without trial, under plans to be unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett. He wants to extend the maximum detention time for suspects from seven to 14 days, when agreed by a court. The home secretary also wants to introduce harsher penalties for passport and driving licence fraud. He accepted the measures would be controversial but said they were necessary in "exceptional or complex cases" where the police needed more time to investigate.  The proposals, which would apply across the UK, have been welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). They will form an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.

Also under Mr Blunkett's proposals, anyone carrying out passport or driving licence fraud could be immediately arrested, instead of being issued with a summons to appear in court at a later date. Scrutiny And anyone who makes a fraudulent driving licence application could face up to two years in prison, rather than facing a maximum fine of £2,500. In a statement Mr Blunkett said it took time to investigate members of loose-knit networks across international boundaries. "To close in on terrorists, the police increasingly need to analyse complex material."

This often included international investigations and retrieving dangerous substances for forensic analysis, he said. But he continued: "I recognise that this important power needs appropriate scrutiny, and only a court may grant an extension to the period of detention without charge." The BBC's Danny Shaw says there are not many cases when suspects are detained for the full seven days - there were only 16 last year. On identity fraud, Mr Blunkett said: "Passport and driving licence fraud are gateway offences to organised crime and terrorism. "Our legislation must keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminals and complex crimes."

Gimmick

Chief Constable Michael Hedges, who deals with terrorism and allied matters for ACPO, backed the proposals. "Additional time to complete a thorough investigation will add significantly to our ability to protect the public from the enduring threat from terrorism, whilst respecting the rights of individuals."

But Mark Littlewood, campaign director of Liberty, called the move a "public relations gimmick" and branded it "ill-considered, unnecessary and politically motivated". "There seems to be no end to this government's tendency to rush through ever more draconian powers in order to appear 'tough on terror'. "There is precious little evidence to suggest that the present provisions, allowing for up to seven days detention without charge, are inadequate."

 

 

ID cards 'promise asylum benefits'

Compulsory identity cards could help prevent failed asylum claims by tackling the problem of people working illegally, a Home Office minister has said. Beverley Hughes was speaking after an influential group of MPs warned that failing to stem dramatic growth in asylum applications could prompt social unrest. The Commons home affairs select committee argued a possible rise in support for extremist parties might be a "political backlash" to a perceived immigration problem. Ms Hughes said "substantial progress" was being made on asylum and suggested ID cards could help further. Questioned by the committee on Thursday, she said: "I think that would make a significant difference in the sense that it is the only thing really that can help us to be rigorous about illegal working." Illegal working was one of the factors attracting people to the UK and other European countries, she argued. The government has yet to decide whether to introduce a national identity card, which has provoked stiff opposition in some quarters.

Ms Hughes said the asylum system was still suffering from the impact the late delivery of a new computer system in 1999 had on the claims backlog.

That delay was a "catastrophe" which had helped create the current claims backlog, she said, especially as about 1,200 case workers were laid off too early.

Ms Hughes said the backlog was an "albatross" around the department's neck, but it had fallen to 40,800 in the latest published figures and since then had dropped further.

Backlash danger

In a report published before Thursday's questions, the MPs say the increase in the number of asylum seekers in the UK - from 4,223 in 1982 to 110,700 in 2002 - is "unacceptable".

They warn: "If allowed to continue unchecked, it could overwhelm the capacity of the receiving countries to cope, leading inevitably to social unrest.

"It could also, and there are signs this may already be happening, lead to a growing political backlash which will in turn lead to the election of extremist parties with extreme solutions."

The British National Party last week became the second largest party in Burnley in the local elections, but only holds of the UK's 22,000 councillors.

But BNP leader Nick Griffin said tensions in places like Bradford and Oldham were nothing to do with asylum seekers.

Instead, they were caused by a "failed multi-cultural experiment" and problems between young Muslims and other communities, he claimed.

The MPs are also critical of the government's decision to set a target to remove 30,000 applicants a year - a target which was never met and subsequently abandoned.

The MPs say it served "only to arouse false expectations... which can only prove demoralising for all concerned".

Action

The MPs also berate a lack of "reliable statistics" indicating how many failed applicants remain in the UK.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said the report was a "damning indictment of a system in chaos" and called for the present regime to be scrapped and replaced with a system of quotas.

"Already we are seeing otherwise sensible people being enticed to vote for extremists because of their worries about the asylum system," he said.

Ms Hughes said the government was taking "decisive action" to target illegal entry and halve the number of asylum applications by September.

"The UK Immigration Service is currently removing more people than ever before," she said.

Fair treatment

The government was as frustrated as the public over the lack of reliable figures on the number of asylum seekers in the UK, she added.

Chris Mullin, the committee's chairman, said it was important to remember that "whether we are dealing with genuine asylum seekers or economic migrants, we are dealing with human beings, not numbers and they should be treated accordingly".

And the report said it was wrong that people awaiting deportation were left in a state of destitution when they could be allowed to work or receive state support in some form.

The committee backed a government proposal to introduce passport checks on people leaving the UK to help establish how many people are living here illegally.

And the MPs say there have been improvements in the asylum removals system in the past month.

 

Treat asylum seekers 'humanely' plea

Refugee campaign groups have broadly welcomed a report which urges that asylum seekers be treated more humanely. Members of the influential Home Affairs select committee said it was "morally unacceptable" that failed asylum seekers were abandoned by the system.

The Refugee Council agreed and called the findings "one of the most compelling contributions to the asylum debate in recent years". The council added it was "particularly encouraged" by the committee's recommendation that asylum seekers be seen as human beings, not numbers.

Margaret Lally, acting chief executive, urged the government to take note of the committee's recommendations on improving its system for allowing people to voluntarily go home. Fair hearing "A process where people return willingly, and with some assistance, will be more cost-effective and will lead to more durable solutions," she said.

She agreed that the integrity of the asylum system relied on people who had failed in their bids to stay in the UK be removed quickly. "However, as this report recognises, integrity is not achieved simply by removing people," she said. "As noted in the report, improving the quality of initial decision-making and ensuring asylum seekers are treated to a fair hearing would increase the efficiency of the whole process and is an essential pre-requisite for a properly functioning removals process."

The charity Refugee Action also welcomed the report but cautioned against drawing the link between the growth in asylum seekers and the political successes of extremist parties.

Spokesman Leigh Daynes urged the government to tackle the "perception in this country that it is fundamentally unfair that asylum seekers come here to seek safety". "We cannot allow the British National Party to exploit asylum seekers," he said.

"It detracts from the real experience of asylum seekers - innocent people caught up in global political events." He said many of the failed asylum seekers he spoke to wanted to work and allowing them to do so would let them support themselves and send money to help with the rebuilding of their countries. "Meaningful activity would make a great difference to these people and their countries."

============================================================

Asylum report at-a-glance

Here are the main points raised by the Commons home affairs select committee in their report on the repatriation of failed asylum seekers.

The UK has seen the number of asylum seekers landing on its shores spiral since the end of the Cold War

 

If allowed to continue unchecked there is an "inevitable" danger of social unrest

 

Failure to deal effectively and humanely with the issue of asylum may cause a political backlash resulting in the rise of extremists

 

Public trust in the asylum system depends on the efficient removal of people whose claims have failed

 

The committee recognises the removals process is far more complicated than most people appreciate

 

The current number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK is impossible to estimate without accurate statistics

 

Enforced removals need to be carried out rapidly, effectively and humanely

 

Asylum seekers and economic migrants deserve to be treated humanely and not as statistics

 

There have been "improvements" to the removals process in recent months

 

Embarkation controls should be put in place to check who is leaving the country

 

 

False targets such as the government's pledge to remove 30,000 failed asylum seekers each year, subsequently dropped, arouse false expectations and are demoralising

 

When a removal of an asylum seeker is delayed not through their own fault they should not be left destitute

 

People who are unable to return to their countries should be granted temporary status so they can support themselves

 

Quarterly figures of all those detained should be published by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate

 

Strip searches of detainees should only be carried out where there is reasonable suspicion to justify such an action

 

A "modest allowance" should be provided to returnees to make sure they do not return to destitution in their countries

 

The committee paid tribute to the workers in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for carrying out a difficult job with "dignity, humanity and fairness"

 

============================================================

 

The dramatic growth in the number of people seeking asylum in Britain could prompt social unrest if the issue is not tackled, an influential group of MPs has warned.

Members of the home affairs select committee also said a possible rise in support for extremist parties might be a "political backlash" to a perceived immigration problem.

In a report on the removal of failed asylum seekers, the MPs are also critical of the government's decision to set a target to remove 30,000 applicants a year - a target which was never met and subsequently abandoned.

The MPs say it served "only to arouse false expectations... which can only prove demoralising for all concerned".

The report says the increase in the number of asylum seekers in the UK - from 4,223 in 1982 to 110,700 in 2002 - is "unacceptable".

And it warns: "If allowed to continue unchecked, it could overwhelm the capacity of the receiving countries to cope, leading inevitably to social unrest.

"It could also, and there are signs this may already be happening, lead to a growing political backlash which will in turn lead to the election of extremist parties with extreme solutions."

The British National Party last week became the second largest party in the town of Burnley after winning eight seats in local council elections.

Action

The MPs also criticise a lack of "reliable statistics" indicating how many failed applicants remain in the UK.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said the report was a "damning indictment of a system in chaos" and called for present regime to be scrapped and replaced with a system of quotas.

"Already we are seeing otherwise sensible people being enticed to vote for extremists because of their worries about the asylum system," he said.

But Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes said the government was taking "decisive action" to target illegal entry and halve the number of asylum applications by September.

"The UK Immigration Service is currently removing more people than ever before," she said.

Fair treatment

She said the government was as frustrated as the public over the lack of reliable figures on the number of asylum seekers in the UK.

Committee chairman Chris Mullin said it was important to remember that "whether we are dealing with genuine asylum seekers or economic migrants, we are dealing with human beings, not numbers and they should be treated accordingly".

And the report said it was wrong that people awaiting deportation were left in a state of destitution when they could be allowed to work or receive state support in some form.

The committee backed a government proposal to introduce passport checks on people leaving the UK to help establish how many people are living here illegally.

And the MPs say there have been improvements in the asylum removals system in the past month.

The report also urges Home Secretary David Blunkett to explain his reasons if he adds further countries to a list of 17 states deemed to be safe and from which asylum applications are automatically turned down.

 

 

 

============================================================

 

 

THE LAWS OF THE LAND - UK

 

CRB (criminal Records Bureau) checks explained

 

The Home office has recently replaced Police checks with CRB checks. While many people could easily go for the Police checks, my experience is that not many are so sure about the CRB checks.

The CRB checks were brought in to safeguard both those who are in contact with vulnerable groups

(E.g. In Healthcare, Childcare etc) and those are legally considered as members of the Vulnerable groups (Old age care, Children, various patients likes those in psychiatric care etc).

 

These CRB checks or “disclosures” are categorised in levels as follows:

 

1.Basic Disclosure (not available yet):

 

This is for all types of employment. It is applied for and only issued to the prospective employee (individual) and it is up to that individual to make a decision whether to or not to show the employer.

It is likely that when this come into force, then majority of the employers will be expected to require job applicants to supply a certificate of this Basic disclosure- as a form of reference!

The Basic disclosure will contain details of convictions considered as “unspent” under the Rehabilitation of the Offenders Act 1974, and held on the national police computer.

 

2.Standard Disclosure:

 

These will show details of all convictions held on the police national computer, including current and spent convictions, as well as any cautions, reprimands or final warnings.

 

3. Enhanced Disclosures:

 

This disclosure will contain all the requirements of the standard disclosures and in addition take a trawl through the local police stations.

The applicants in this level of disclosure are BOTH the employer and the employees. Copies of the disclosure certificates are made available to both applicants. This level of disclosure is the most familiar with those working in the Healthcare environment.

 

That a department at the Home office is controlling these checks does not mean that the checks will affect those not involved in crimes (and convictions) adversely.

 

 

Adapted from the Manchester Evening News by Gabriel Rwamba

 

 

Refugees 'can stay on if they avoid ejection long enough'
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 16/09/2002)

Failed asylum seekers can be guaranteed to remain in Britain if they can stay with their families for seven years without being ejected, the Home Office has admitted.

Refugees who stay on illegally but get married or enter into a long-term relationship are also likely to be given leave to stay, even if they are not awarded asylum.

The policy has been outlined in a memorandum to a Commons committee that begins hearing evidence tomorrow about the breakdown in the asylum system.

Last week, new UN figures confirmed that Britain was now far and away the most attractive destination for asylum seekers in the western world. Another study by the Migration Watch think-tank for the home affairs select committee has shown that the vast majority of failed asylum applicants remain in the country.

One reason why Britain is a magnet to economic migrants is the knowledge among asylum seekers that if they can get into the country they are unlikely to be removed.

In its memorandum, the Home Office acknowledges that if an asylum seeker with children can avoid deportation for a specific period then they will be allowed to stay.

"We will not normally seek to remove a family group where there are children who have spent in excess of seven years in the UK, or anyone who has been continuously resident here for more than 14 years," it says.

"Similarly, marriage or a relationship akin to marriage may be a reason to allow someone who does not meet the strict conditions under the Immigration Rules to remain in the United Kingdom."

The paper adds: "The health of the person concerned, including whether or not he or she is fit to travel, will also be a consideration."

Although there have been amnesties in the past for asylum seekers who have been in the country for years because of delays in considering their cases, it is rare for the Home Office to spell out the circumstances in which failed applicants will be allowed to stay.

It will add to the concerns of those who believe that the Government's failure to enforce decisions on asylum is the principal reason why Britain is the favoured destination for so many would-be refugees.

Sir Andrew Green, a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia who chairs Migration Watch, will give evidence to the committee tomorrow and denounce the policy of removing illegal refugees as a sham.

"The plain fact is that asylum seekers are arriving at a rate of about 100,000 a year and being removed at a rate of 10,000 a year," he will say. "So anyone who claims asylum has a 90 per cent chance of remaining in Britain, irrespective of the merits of his claim."

The Migration Watch figures show that of the 126,200 decisions made by the Home Office on applications for asylum in England and Wales last year, 41,940 were granted asylum, given "exceptional leave" to remain in the country permanently or had their appeals granted.

That left 84,260 whose applications to stay here were refused. Of these, only 9,285 left the country, leaving about 75,000 who remained in England and Wales illegally. When dependants are included, the total number rises to about 97,500.

"The sheer scale of these numbers demonstrates that without an effective removal system there can be no effective border control. Yet the Government appears to have responded by abandoning its removals target," Sir Andrew will say.

The study is expected to reignite the asylum debate at a time when ministers are already on the defensive and trying to convince the public that they have the asylum problem under control.

The Home Office memorandum claims that removal of asylum seekers and dependants is currently running at 1,000 a month, which the Government says is the highest level in the European Union. However, it confirms that the target to remove 30,000 failed asylum applicants by next March - set only 12 months ago - has been abandoned.

"Challenging and realistic targets will be set shortly," it adds. "Initial discussions have suggested that the target be measured as a percentage of appeals dismissed and no-appeal cases and that, as an additional measure, improvement of performance against the previous year will be used."