From Bad to Worse

The asylum bill returns to the Commons tomorrow for a second reading. Backbench Labour MPs who have lined up in opposition to foundation hospitals and variable university fees, will be faced with something far more fundamental: the danger of Britain returning refugees to the persecutors from whom they were forced to flee. There could hardly be a bigger test of defending liberty. Unless the MPs make a stand, this fifth asylum bill in 10 years, will only make an already oppressive entry system even harsher. Ministers are planning a drastic reduction in legal aid to asylum seekers. They intend to reduce their rights of appeal and are even threatening to take into care the children of asylum seekers who have had their applications rejected. When even Michael Howard, the most hardline home secretary of modern times, has described this last threat as "despicable", it is surely time to act.

The issue causing the Tory leader concern was - to its credit - taken up by the Commons select committee on home affairs in a responsible report published yesterday. Sensibly, the MPs urged ministers to pursue a vigorous policy of swift removal, rather than forcing children to suffer for their parents' actions. They rightly note that the current proposal could have the effect of driving failed asylum seekers underground, making it harder to return them. The reason behind the ministerial moves - revealed by the publication of the immigration minister's evidence for the first time yesterday - does not stand up. She claimed compulsory removals were "extremely expensive" - but taking the children of failed asylum seekers into care would make it even more expensive.

A sensible government would be seeking to improve poor initial decisions. They are so bad that appeals against 20% of these decisions are allowed by the first stage of the appeal system. This represents about 15,000 cases. From some countries, there is an even higher successful appeal rate - 30% from Zimbabwe and 41% from Somali. It is these poor initial decisions that are the main cause of delays in the system. Yet there is little in the bill that will improve the quality of these decisions. Indeed, with its proposals to slash the current legal-aid bill, ministers are only going to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to make an initial claim. MPs should remind ministers of the Refugee Council's comment: "We require lawyers to help us move house and get divorced, yet the government suggests we do not need them when we have fled tyranny and are frightened for our lives."

The Guardian