THE KIRKHOPE COMMISSION ON ASYLUM...Kirkhope MEP Following the publication of the Conservative Party’s interim asylum proposals in Spring 2003, I was asked by the Shadow Home Secretary,

THE KIRKHOPE COMMISSION

ON ASYLUM

BUILDING A FAIR

ASYLUM SYSTEM

September 2003

building a fair asylum system

2


3

CONTENTS Foreword: by Timothy Kirkhope MEP

Executive Summary

Preamble

Twenty Recommendations

Overview

Appendix 1: Membership

Appendix 2: Meeting dates

Appendix 3: Evidence

4

5

7

9

21

23

25

26


4

FOREWORD

by Timothy

Kirkhope MEP

Following the publication of the Conservative

Party’s interim asylum proposals in Spring 2003, I

was asked by the Shadow Home Secretary, The Rt

Hon Oliver Letwin MP, to set up and chair a small

Commission to consider those policies against a

wider background and, if possible, to put forward

further suggestions for consideration by the Party

prior to the preparation of our manifesto for the next

General Election. The members of the Commission

are shown in the Appendix and I should like to thank

all of them for their contributions.

The Commission met on twelve occasions in

London and took oral and written evidence, as well

as carrying out a thorough review of the present

situation and the potential action to be taken by an

incoming Conservative Government.

This report attempts to provide solutions to the

present asylum crisis. It is not a description of the

current situation because much has already been

written on this. I believe that our recommendations,

if implemented, would assist in improving asylum

procedures and outcomes.

I should particularly like to thank Martin Howe QC

for the legal advice which he has provided to the

Commission during its deliberations. I would like to

thank Matthew Elliott who has acted as Special

Adviser to the Commission, Catherine Gilliard my

Political Assistant and researcher Lisa Vanhala. I

am also grateful to those who have contributed in

any other way to our work. I hope this report will

form a significant part of our future asylum policy.

Timothy Kirkhope MEP, September 2003


5

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Recommendation 1:

Recommendation 2:

Recommendation 3:

Recommendation 4:

Recommendation 5:

Recommendation 6:

Recommendation 7:

Recommendation 8:

Recommendation 9:

Recommendation 10:

The Commission recommends the following, to

create a fair asylum system:

The Government should publish accurate statistics

on the level of migration in and out of the UK.

The Conservative Party should restate Britain’s

opt-out from Schengen.

Documents should be photographed or scanned

before international journeys to the UK.

People should be allowed to apply for asylum in

British Embassies and Consulates.

Application Centres should be established in “safe”

neighbouring countries and supported from our

Overseas Aid budget.

Consideration should be given to establishing one

or more off-shore Application Centres in the British

Isles.

The ‘white list’ should come under the joint control

of the Home Office and the Foreign Office.

Like Germany, Britain should only accept state

persecution as a legitimate reason for granting

asylum.

The Government should establish an Independent

Application Board whose remit would be controlled

by Parliament.

The application system should not involve the

normal UK judicial processes or judicial reviews.


6

Recommendation 11:

Recommendation 12:

Recommendation 13:

Recommendation 14:

Recommendation 15:

Recommendation 16:

Recommendation 17:

Recommendation 18:

Recommendation 19:

Recommendation 20:

The application system should not involve legal aid

or appeals to the European Court.

Successful asylum applicants should initially be

granted temporary asylum.

Any quota on the number of people granted

asylum should be interpreted as a maximum quota,

rather than a rigid quota.

The database of fingerprints of unsuccessful

asylum seekers should be improved and shared

with other countries.

Asylum seekers should sign a Contract of

Obligations when temporary asylum is granted.

Britain should encourage further discussion and

work on the introduction of Europe-wide biometric

ID cards.

The Overseas Aid budget should be repatriated

from the European Union, and should become a

major resource in Britain’s asylum system.

Britain should not unilaterally withdraw from

international Treaty obligations.

Race relations and asylum and immigration should

be a combined portfolio.

The Conservative Party should continue to oppose

the emerging European Union asylum policy.


7

PREAMBLE The Commission believes that the UK should

always provide a fair deal for genuine asylum

seekers.

Throughout history Britain has provided a home for

migrants, including those fleeing persecution in their

native lands. From the Huguenots to the Kosovans,

Britain has provided a refuge for those in need.

Controlled migration has contributed to our society

and our culture and has arguably helped us to

maintain a leading role in the world.

We are mindful that we have a moral obligation,

enshrined in all religions and creeds, to provide

refuge and a home for asylum seekers—a diverse

group of people who cannot be treated as a

homogenous group. Sadly, however, in recent years

Britain's asylum system has been increasingly

abused. Our traditional tolerance has been tested

and good race relations have come under serious

threat. The complete failure of Government to put in

place mechanisms for accurately assessing the

numbers and categories of those entering and

leaving the country means that we simply do not

have the statistics which would allow us to plan

properly for the needs of the country in the fields of

health, education, housing and social services.

Even after due legal process, we simply have no

idea of who is here and who has left. The

enlargement of the European Union and the rights

of free movement within Europe further complicates

the situation. Even though Britain enjoys a certain

amount of control over its borders through its

Schengen opt-out, we have failed to take advantage

of that position for the benefit of both our resident

population and those asylum seekers with due


8

cause to be in the country. We therefore need to

undertake a fundamental review of our asylum

system in order to re-establish a fair deal for

genuine asylum seekers.

Although the Commission was not asked to look at

the vexed question of immigration as a whole, the

line between asylum and immigration policies has

become increasingly obscured in recent years. We

believe that our whole immigration policy should be

considered in greater detail as a matter of urgency

to reflect the special priorities and requirements of

the UK.

Creating a fairer system for asylum necessarily

involves other countries taking their responsibility

seriously too. Britain is the most densely populated

country in the western world. Even the UN accepts

that we take proportionately more asylum seekers

than other countries. We must all play a responsible

role and fairness applies not just to asylum seekers

but also to the nation states.

The enlargement of Europe and the requirements

for free movement will place even heavier burdens

on us in future. In the meantime, however, cases

such as the recent conviction of an Albanian human

trafficker in the Belgium courts demonstrate the

need for more urgent EU-wide action. We must

cooperate with our European neighbours to convict

such criminals, but this does not require European

Union harmonisation. We owe it to genuine asylum

seekers to penalise those who profit from their plight

and to re-establish fair and transparent systems of

handling applications which enjoy public confidence,

both at home and abroad.


9

TWENTY

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission recommends the following, to

create a fair asylum system:

Recommendation 1: The Government should publish accurate

statistics on the level of migration in and out of

the UK.

The Government needs to distinguish between

refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers and

should know how many people are living illegally in

Britain. Just as the police need proper figures on

the number and type of crimes being carried out,

so too must the Home Office publish accurate

figures on migration.

But there is a paucity of verifiable and meaningful

statistics, especially over departures from the UK.

For example, the Home Office does not know how

many failed asylum seekers leave of their own

volition or how many persons admitted for a

temporary period then overstay. Details of all non-

EU/EEA nationals entering and leaving the UK

should be recorded electronically. Sensible and

workable internal reporting procedures should be

put in place for this.

In all major areas of Government expenditure,

resources are deployed and need is met on the

basis of population statistics and demographic

information. This is particularly so in healthcare,

education and social and public services. As illegal

residents are unaccounted for when budgets are

set, even an error of 100,000 people can have a

dramatic effect on provision. If the statistics are out


10

by millions, which could be the case, the overall

provision will be drastically inadequate and will

inevitably result in hardship. Even Mayor of London

Ken Livingstone has admitted that as many as five

percent of London’s population is illegal; but does

his strategy for the city take this into account?

In order to calculate population statistics and

determine provision, we believe that Britain should

re-introduce outward controls and checks at our

airports and ports and consider the establishment

of a new Border Police Force comprising of

components from the present Immigration,

Customs, Coastguard, and Police services. This

should work in co-operation with any new

“homeland security” organization.

Recommendation 2:

The Conservative Party should restate Britain’s

opt-out from Schengen.

The Labour Party has diluted our opt-out from the

Schengen Agreement, but an opt-out is a

necessary component of a fair asylum system.

Without it we are unable to control our borders or

compile meaningful statistics on the UK’s

population. If we are to re-establish proper

controls, there must be a clear and continuing

understanding with our European neighbours that

we will maintain the opt-out as a matter of

principle.

Recommendation 3: Documents should be photographed or

scanned before international journeys to the

UK.

Travel operators of planes, boats, trains and

coaches already have certain obligations under a

Carriers' Liability Act to ensure proper


11

documentation of those whom they carry. The

necessary checks are not always made and whilst

it is understandable that the demands for speedy

travel puts pressure on the operators, technology

has advanced to the point where there should be a

statutory obligation to photograph or scan the

documents of all persons embarking for entry to

the UK. British companies should be granted

special tax relief to cover expenditure on such

facilities.

Recording documents would minimise the chances

of passengers destroying them during or

immediately after the journey, before reaching UK

passport control. In addition to this, passengers

should be counted on and off their means of

transportation and through immigration control.

Recommendation 4:

People should be allowed to apply for asylum

in British Embassies and Consulates.

The current asylum system encourages people to

enter the country illegally, pushing them into the

hands of smugglers and traffickers, partly because

it is impossible to claim asylum overseas. It is

therefore important to allow genuine asylum

seekers to claim asylum legally. Allowing people to

apply for asylum at British Embassies and

Consulates overseas, as is the current Austrian

practice, could achieve this outcome. This would

be a supplementary process and not a total

substitute for applications in Britain.

Those deemed probable genuine cases would then

be conveyed to the nearest “safe” neighbouring

country (see Recommendation 5 and the Annex)

from which their application would be processed.

Such applications would be given preference over


12

those made in the UK so as to encourage more

overseas applications and less illegal entry.

Recommendation 5:

Application Centres should be established in

“safe” neighbouring countries and supported

from our Overseas Aid budget.

Allowing people to apply for asylum overseas

prevents unsuccessful asylum seekers from ‘going

underground’ before deportation. Illegal immigrants

have contributed to the growth of the black

economy, which is uninsured, untaxed and

unregulated.

The Commission believes that it is often in the

interests of asylum seekers that their applications

should be made from Application Centres in a safe

location close to where they have come from. It

would be less disruptive for many asylum seekers,

especially families, to remain within the same

broad culture and region, rather than facing a long

journey to what may be a totally foreign

environment. They would also avoid falling into the

hands of major criminal activity in trafficking and

extortion. However, large permanent refugee

camps such as have been seen in the Middle East

and elsewhere should be avoided.

The Commission also believes that successful

asylum seekers in such safe locations should

normally stay in those countries rather than coming

to the UK. Subsidising a successful asylum seeker

overseas is cheaper and more effective than

subsidising the same person in the UK. This would,

of course, have to be agreed with the safe

neighbouring country when drawing up the bilateral

agreement permitting the UK to have an

Application Centre in that country.


13

Recommendation 6:

Consideration should be given to establishing

one or more off-shore Application Centres in

the British Isles.

Although more asylum applications should be dealt

with close to the asylum seeker’s country of origin,

a significant number of applications will still be

dealt with in the UK. Some people fleeing state

persecution will be unable, for various reasons, to

submit an application for asylum to their nearest

British Embassy or Consulate. All applications

could and should be dealt with within a short period

of time of no more than six weeks.

In such cases, asylum seekers would be taken to

offshore Application Centres. The centres would

provide a clean, safe, habitable environment but

offer no prospects for economic advancement.

There would be a low population density in the

surrounding area. Home Office officials would be

based onsite. The need for a fast turnaround would

be of paramount importance in these centres.

Recommendation 7: The ‘white list’ should come under the joint

control of the Home Office and the Foreign

Office.

Britain currently has a so-called ‘white list’ of

countries from which application for asylums are

usually automatically rejected due to these

countries' commitment, mostly under international

conventions, to human rights and legal redress. In

Britain it is currently the Foreign Office alone which

determines the countries which should be on this

list. We believe that the determination of this status

should in future be the joint responsibility of the

Foreign Office and the Home Office, thereby


14

allowing a better scrutiny of circumstances,

criminal intelligence and justice issues to take

place.

Recommendation 8:

Like Germany, Britain should only accept state

persecution as a legitimate reason for granting

asylum.

We have referred in Recommendation 7 to a 'white

list' of countries to which applicants will normally be

automatically returned. The list will include all EU

and accession states to the European Union.

Applications will only be considered from asylum

seekers who claim to have been persecuted by

state authorities. It is a matter for individual states

to determine their internal anti-discriminatory and

social legislation in accordance with international

obligations and human rights. Any breach of proper

standards is primarily a matter for the

democratically elected institutions in those

countries and should not be the basis for individual

asylum claims to other countries. However, where

a state does persecute individuals or groups,

asylum applications should be considered.

Recommendation 9:

The Government should establish an

Independent Application Board whose remit

would be controlled by Parliament.

An Independent Application Board should be

established to deal with asylum claims, modelled

on the current Canadian system. Information from

the Home Office and the Foreign Office regarding

the situation in countries of origin would be

provided in a direct and disinterested manner and

the remit of the Board would be controlled by

Parliament. Decisions on applications would be

reached by the Application Board following an


15

initial assessment at the Application Centre. This

system would replace the present judicial structure

in relation to asylum applications. The costs of this

new structure would be met from administrative

and legal savings made elsewhere in the system,

especially legal aid (see Recommendation 11).

Recommendation 10:

The application system should not involve the

normal UK judicial processes or judicial

reviews.

The application system should be controlled by an

Independent Application Board described in

Recommendation 9. It should be a simple system

involving one adjudicator and one appeal. All

appeals should be heard within the Application

Centres. Judicial review is not internationally

available to the extent that it is in Britain, where it is

almost automatically granted, so keeping

applications within the remit of an Independent

Application Board would also bring us into line with

the international norm.

Recommendation 11:

The application system should not involve

legal aid or appeals to the European Court.

When asylum seekers are conveyed to their off-

shore Application Centre, their cases will be

assessed by the Independent Application Board as

fast as possible. It is recommended that resources

are allocated to ensure a maximum 'turnaround

time' of 6 weeks. There will be no opportunity for

judicial review as the board's decision will be final

and there will be no need for legal aid. Translation

and interpretation will be provided as appropriate.

These cases will not at any point be permitted to

“switch” into the general judicial system so appeals

to the European Court will be prohibited.


16

Recommendation 12:

Successful asylum applicants should initially

be granted temporary asylum.

Asylum should usually be temporary and should

last only for as long as the clearly identified

dangers to the individual remain. If after a period of

five years the situation in the country from which

the person granted asylum has not improved or the

country has not been reinstated on the “white list”,

people with temporary asylum should be eligible to

apply for permanent asylum.

If at any time the situation which provided the basis

for temporary asylum changes and the country

concerned is deemed likely to remain safe for the

foreseeable future, the individual will be obliged to

return. Such an arrangement is also referred to in

our Contract of Obligations in Recommendation

15.

Recommendation 13:

Any quota on the number of people granted

asylum should be interpreted as a maximum

quota, rather than a rigid quota.

In any democracy there is a limit to the number of

people who can be supported by resources and a

limit to the size of the population. Pressures which

come about as a result of large numbers of often

unproductive persons create social tensions and

economic challenges. The Conservative Party has

proposed quotas in relation to asylum applications.

Within the context of physical limits we consider

such a policy is perfectly understandable and

necessary. However, any quota should be a

maximum. Over a period of time we will want to

review any such quota, hopefully still being able to

accommodate within it the numbers who have


17

genuine cause to be granted asylum in the UK

under our new arrangements.

Of course, all applications should be decided by

the new proposed Independent Applications Board,

not the UNHCR or Red Cross, and the quota

should also include all those granted humanitarian

or other temporary relief as well as those

supported in safe overseas countries (see

Recommendation 5).

Recommendation 14:

The database of fingerprints of unsuccessful

asylum seekers should be improved and

shared with other countries.

A database of fingerprints for people whose

asylum applications have been rejected should be

established. This should be accessible by

immigration staff at all points of entry and should

also be shared with our international partners.

Recommendation 15:

Asylum seekers should sign a Contract of

Obligations when temporary asylum is granted.

In line with Article 2 of the UN Convention on

Refugees we believe that all those who are

successful in asylum claims in the UK should be

obliged to sign a Contract of Obligations. The UK

will list its commitments in the fields of housing,

healthcare, education and social services and the

person to whom asylum is granted will commit him

or herself to abide by British law and to accept any

necessary linguistic and other training necessary to

find gainful employment. Non-compliance with

such a contract would be an offence which could

result in a review of an individual's asylum status.


18

Recommendation 16:

Britain should encourage further discussion

and work on the introduction of Europe-wide

biometric ID cards.

ID cards have always been a controversial area.

There have been plans to introduce them at

various times, including during the last

Conservative Government. After wide consultation,

however, the plans were dropped. We believe that

the merits and demerits are now much more

balanced, although we acknowledge that unless

there is a Europe-wide system the benefits would

still be limited.

We note the recent remarks of a Belgian judge

which indicated that not only did Britain have “poor

immigration laws” but its failure to have an ID card

scheme and appropriate reporting methods was

providing a clear attraction to illegal residency.

Recommendation 17:

The Overseas Aid budget should be repatriated

from the European Union, and should become

a major resource in Britain’s asylum system.

There are deep concerns about the way in which

the European Union overseas budget is utilised.

Our remit is not to comment in detail on this but we

recommend the repatriation of the UK’s

contribution to that budget. We should still

contribute to certain emergency aid situations but

most of the resources should be redeployed and

become a major resource in Britain’s asylum

system.

The majority of Overseas Aid should be used to

support asylum seekers and those granted asylum

who are in need in the safe neighbouring countries.


19

Investing in the infrastructure of the country,

including the education, healthcare and transport

system, would create jobs for both those granted

asylum and national citizens, thus reducing the

differential between the developing and developed

world and therefore the need for economic

migration.

Recommendation 18:

Britain should not unilaterally withdraw from

international Treaty obligations.

Britain should preferably not withdraw from

international treaty obligations. Our proposals will

contribute greatly to improving the asylum system

and giving asylum seekers a fair deal. We think

that all this can be done without departing from our

international obligations. Ending the chaos in the

asylum system whilst continuing to offer

humanitarian relief in needy cases is a worthy goal

and we should try to persuade other countries to

follow the good practice which we will advocate

and implement.

Recommendation 19:

Race relations and asylum and immigration

should be a combined portfolio.

Until the Labour Party came into Government,

there was a combined ministerial portfolio for

asylum and immigration and race relations. The

Conservative Party’s policy has always been for a

“fair but firm” immigration and asylum policy. This

has produced ever improving race relations. The

deterioration of race relations recently witnessed in

the streets of our towns and cities and the rise of

extremism fuelled by local social pressures

underlines the need for a return to a combined

portfolio. A fair asylum system and good race

relations go hand-in-hand. The Conservative Party


20

in Government should reinstate a combined

portfolio.

Recommendation 20: The Conservative Party should continue to

oppose the emerging European Union asylum

policy.

Asylum is primarily a matter of national concern.

Whilst there is certainly a role for international co-

operation in asylum matters (such as sharing

information on failed asylum seekers), the

European Union should not be allowed to

harmonise for harmonisation’s sake. The emerging

EU asylum policy is simply another step towards a

European Superstate rather than a credible

response to the current situation. In this field the

determinants must remain under national control.


21

OVERVIEW The following table is an overview of how the

proposed Asylum System would operate for

overseas applicants and applicants in Britain.

The numbers in brackets refer to Commission

recommendations. For example, (4) refers to

Recommendation 4.

OVERSEAS APPLICATIONS

BRITISH APPLICATIONS

A. Location

X arrives at a British embassy to

claim asylum (4). Overseas

applications are given priority in

the maximum quota (13).

Y applies for asylum in the UK.

Domestic applications have a

lower priority in the maximum

quota.

B. Country of origin Are X and Y from a white list country? (7)

Yes: There are no grounds for asylum. They are fingerprinted

and their details are recorded.

No: Possible case for asylum.

C. State persecution Are X and Y claiming asylum on the grounds of state persecution? (8)

No: There are no grounds for asylum. They are fingerprinted

and their details are recorded.

Yes: Possible case for asylum


22

D. Documentation Do X and Y have documents proving their identification and

nationality? (3)

Yes: Asylum seekers with documentation are given priority in

the maximum quota.

No: Documentation is not essential, but those without

documents have a lower priority in the maximum quota.

E. Independent

Application Centre

X is conveyed to an Independent

Application Centre (9) in a safe

neighbouring country (5).

Y is conveyed to an off-shore (6)

Independent Application Centre

in the British Isles.

F. Appeals If application for asylum is rejected, the asylum seeker is allowed to

appeal. If their appeal is rejected, they will be conveyed to their

country of origin. (10)

G. Temporary asylum If X’s application is successful,

they will be granted temporary

asylum (12) and they will be

supported in the safe

neighbouring country from the

Overseas Aid Budget (17)

If Y’s case is accepted, they will

be granted temporary asylum in

the UK (12) after signing a

contract of obligation (15)

obliging them, amongst other

things, to return to their country

of origin if it is reinstated on the

White List.

H. Permanent asylum Anybody who has temporary asylum status for more than five years

will be eligible to apply for permanent asylum and to work in the UK.


23

Appendix 1:

Membership

CHAIRMAN: Timothy Kirkhope MEP

CV: Conservative European Parliament spokesman,

Justice and Home Affairs (1999-); Conservative

Party representative on the European Convention

(2002-); Home Office Minister for Asylum and

Immigration and Race Relations (1995-97); MP for

Leeds North East (1987-97); Solicitor

Baroness Anelay

CV: Conservative Home Affairs spokesman in the

House of Lords (1997-98 & 2002-); Vice-President,

National Union Executive Committee of the

Conservative Party (1996-97); Member, NUEC

(1987-97)

Annesley Abercorn

CV: Parliamentary Assistant, the Hon Bernard

Jenkin MP (2002-03); Deputy Chairman (Political),

London West Conservative Future (2002-);

Secretary, Conservative Friends of Gibraltar (2002-

); Brent East Conservative Association Executive

(2002-)

Elizabeth Campbell

CV: Parliamentary Researcher, Rt Hon Oliver

Letwin MP (2002-); Conservative parliamentary

candidate, Gateshead East and Washington West

(2001).

Nirj Deva MEP

CV: Special Adviser for Ethnic Affairs to the Rt Hon

Iain Duncan Smith (2001-); Conservative European

Parliament spokesman, Development and

Cooperation (1999-); MEP for South East England

(1999-); MP for Brentford & Isleworth (1992-97)


24

Nadine Dorries

CV: Businesswoman; Advised Shadow Home

Affairs Team on asylum matters

Dr Peter Gilbert

CV: Research Fellow, University College London

(1993-); Adviser, Cabinet Office (1987-93)

Sheila Gunn MBE

CV: Camden Councillor; vice president and co-

founder, Conservative Rural Action Group;

Associate Director, GPC International; Political

Press Spokesman, Rt Hon John Major MP (1995-

97); Senior political correspondent and columnist,

The Times (1983-95)

Humfrey Malins CBE MP

CV: Recorder of the Crown Court (1996-);

Conservative spokesman on asylum and

immigration (2001-3); Member, House of Commons

Home Affairs Committee (1997-); PPS to Tim

Renton as Minister of State, Home Office (1987-89);

MP for Woking (1997-) and Croydon North West

(1983-92); Chairman of Trustees, Immigration

Advisory Service (1993-96)

Stuart Polak

CV: Director, Conservative Friends of Israel (1989-);

Education Director, Board of Deputies of British

Jews (1984-89); Approved candidates list (1992-)

SPECIAL ADVISER: Matthew Elliott

CV: Political Secretary, Timothy Kirkhope MEP

(1996-97 & 2001-); European Foundation (1998-

2001); London School of Economics (1997-2000)


25

Appendix 2:

Meeting dates

Thursday 8th May 2003

Monday 19th May 2003

Monday 26th May 2003

Thursday 29th May 2003

Monday 2nd June 2003

Tuesday 10th June 2003

Monday 16th June 2003

Friday 27th June 2003

Friday 4th July 2003

Monday 7th July 2003

Friday 18th July 2003

Tuesday 22nd July 2003


26

Appendix 3:

Evidence

Working Paper 1: Introductory reading

Update: Asylum, Parliamentary Resources Unit, Winter

2002/2003

A Concise Guide to Migration Issues, Migration Watch

UK Bulletin No. 1, 2 January 2003

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,

House of Commons Library Standard Note, 3 January

2003

Asylum trends in industrialised countries, UNHCR, 13

March 2003

Asylum statistics, House of Commons Library Standard

Note, 28 February 2003

IAS Election Manifesto 2001, Immigration Advisory

Service, 1 May 2001

People flow: Managing migration in the New European

Commonwealth, DEMOS briefing

Asylum in Germany, House of Commons Library

Standard Note, 7 September 2001

British Views On Immigration, MORI, 10 February 2003

Practical measures needed now to end the asylum

crisis, Timothy Kirkhope, 21 January 2003

Asylum Policy, Conservatives, 28 January 2003

Working Paper 2: Current legal dimension of asylum

Making an Appeal, Immigration and Nationality

Directorate of the Home Office, downloaded from

www.homeoffice.gov.uk on 30 April 2003.

Immigration and Asylum Update, New Law Journal, 25

April 2003

A review of Exceptional Leave to Remain, Migration

Watch UK Bulletin No. 10

Don’t send me back to where I was raped, The Mirror,

29 March 2003

Afghan refugees put on aircraft back to Kabul, The

Times, 29 April 2003

Judge urges changes to stop asylum-seekers ‘playing

system’, The Times, 10 April 2003


27

Judges prepare for battle with Blunkett, Daily

Telegraph, 27 February 2003

Court rules that Blunkett asylum policy is illegal, The

Times, 20 February 2003

Blunkett to fight asylum ruling, The Guardian, 20

February 2003

Winstanley-Burgess to shut as low legal aid rates and

long hours take their toll, Law Gazette, 20 March 2003

Immigration firms to join pilot duty solicitor scheme, Law

Gazette, 27 March 2003

Keeping up standards, Law Gazette, 25 April 2003

Judges accused of ‘milking asylum law’, Daily

Telegraph, 22 February 2003

The asylum seekers I meet are so often leering,

arrogant liars. But each one is worth £1,500 of

taxpayers’ cash to us legal aid lawyers, Mail on Sunday,

27 April 2003

Working Paper 3: Current social dimension of asylum

Education: The impact of asylum seekers, Migration

Watch

Turkish children organised reign of terror at German

school, Sunday Telegraph, 30 March 2003

Asylum seekers: Access to NHS treatment, Department

of Health, www.doh.gov.uk accessed 9 May 2003

Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the London Health

Strategy, Department of Health, www.doh.gov.uk

accessed 9 May 2003

Health services for asylum seekers and refugees,

Refugee Council Briefing, July 2002

Blunkett’s race warning, Daily Telegraph, 21 January

2003

Support for Asylum Seekers, House of Commons

Library Standard Note, 25 February 2003

Implications of the Government’s appeal on asylum

benefits, Migration Watch

Let asylum seekers stay – but don’t give them a penny,

Theodore Dalrymple, Daily Telegraph, 6 August 2003


28

Asylum seekers’ employment concession, House of

Commons Library Standard Note, 26 July 2002

Work Permits and Immigration, Migration Watch Bulletin

No 9

We’re a job centre, not a safe haven, Alasdair Palmer,

Sunday Telegraph, 1 December 2002

Immigrants ‘will double demand for new homes’, The

Times, 3 July 2002

Asylum seekers offload on rural towns, Daily Telegraph,

2 February 2003

Working Paper 4: Current economic and domestic

dimensions of asylum

Refugees and asylum seekers: the economic argument,

Refugee Action

Migrants – Do they bring economic benefit?, Migration

Watch, Bulletin No 8

The migrant population in the UK: fiscal effects, Ceri

Gott and Karl Johnston, Home Office Occasional Paper

No 77 (Extract)

Immigration, CBI Issue Statement, www.cbi.org.uk

accessed on 20 May 2003

£2bn bill for flood of asylum seekers, Daily Telegraph, 1

March 2003

The black economy ‘draws asylum seekers to Britain’,

Daily Mail, 21 May 2003

Asylum antics, Financial Times, 24/25 May 2003

Flaws in the fortress, Guardian, 27 March 2003

Playing this crude numbers games plays into the hands

of xenophobes, Independent, 23 May 2003

Seeking refuge, The Times, 23 May 2003

Unhealthy tourism, Daily Telegraph, 23 May 2003

Whitehall turf wars defeat fight against asylum abuse,

Daily Express, 26 May 2003

NHS magnet for asylum seekers, Daily Mail, 26 May

2003

What a joke, The Sun, 23 May 2003

Asylum shame, Daily Mirror, 28 May 2003


29

Working Paper 5: Current international dimension of

asylum

Israeli Asylum Policy, Conservative Friends of Israel,

2003

Israel, U.S. Committee for Refugees

Australia, U.S. Committee for Refugees

The 1951 Refugee Convention – Q & A, www.unccr.ch,

2 August 2001

EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, House of

Commons Library Standard Note, 27 February 2003

Comparison of International Asylum Systems

The European Convention of Human Rights

The 1952 Geneva Convention and 1967 New York

Protocol

Working Paper 6: Current economic and domestic

dimensions of asylum

The Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP’s submission to the

House of Common Home Affairs Committee, June 2003

Sir Andrew Green’s submission to the Kirkhope

Commission, June 2003

Keith Best’s submission to the Kirkhope Commission,

June 2003