Howard reveals 'white list' for asylum-seekers is revealed

Tuesday 12 December 1995 01:02 GMT
Comments

STEPHEN GOODWIN

NICHOLAS TIMMINS

and HEATHER MILLS

Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, yesterday announced his so-called "white list" of countries whose citizens he regards as facing no serious risk of persecution and unlikely to deserve asylum in Britain.

Accusations of "playing the race card" were hurled across the Commons as it emerged that thousands of would-be refugees from the seven countries - India, Pakistan, Ghana, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland and Romania - will find it still harder to make a case to remain in Britain under procedures to be introduced in the Government's Asylum and Immigration Bill.

But during a second-reading debate on the Bill, Mr Howard said it was "not immoral" to insist that people from "safe" countries returned to pursue their claims there, nor to protect the job opportunities of those entitled to live and work in Britain. He claimed that no further obstacles were being put in the way of genuine refugees. "But we must be a haven, not a honey pot," he said.

Meanwhile, church leaders joined in the controversy surrounding the clampdown on refugees by publicly airing their concerns - not only about the Bill but about plans to withdraw benefits from thousands of asylum-seekers next month. The two-pronged attack "appears to undermine the spirit" of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, they said in a letter to the Times. In particular, the benefit changes - due to come in on 8 January - meant many vulnerable people, including children, could find themselves homeless and penniless at the coldest time of year.

The Conservative-controlled Westminster City Council pleaded with the Government to defer the benefit proposals, alleging that the claimed Treasury savings will simply mean higher costs for local government.

Ministers maintain the move will save pounds 200m a year. But Westminster believes the changes will cost it alone more than pounds 10m a year "on relatively conservative assumptions", cutting the already stretched budget for children, the elderly and other social services. Other local authorities believe they too will face large bills and some Conservative MPs fear many of the savings will prove illusory.

David Shaw, the Tory MP for Dover, a key port of entry, told the Independent he was "very worried" that the costs would simply shift from social security to social services and housing. "We need to make absolutely sure that this is not just a sideways transfer of expenditure and is going to result in real savings," he said.

An estimated 13,000 asylum-seekers, plus their dependents, will be left penniless by the social security system. They include some 6,000 people who have entered the UK since the policy was announced on 12 October and then sought asylum, and some 7,000 who are at present appealing.

In the Commons, opposition parties again pressed for the Bill to be sent to special select committee, which could take evidence on the extent of the problem and why legislation introduced three years ago had failed to deal with it.

Jack Straw, the shadow Home Secretary, said Labour would oppose the Bill. The white list rules were "Kafka- esque and placed an "almost impossible burden of proof" on asylum-seekers. In the nine months to the end of September, more than 6,000 applications for asylum were made by people from the three countries: India 2,380, Ghana 1,530, and Pakistan 2,130. Seventy were granted either refugee status or granted extended leave to remain in Britain. Under the "fast-track" system proposed by Mr Howard their successors would have only a very restricted right of appeal.

Mr Howard said there were three criteria for placing countries on the list: no serious risk of persecution, that they generated significant numbers of asylum claims, and that a very high proportion of these proved to be unfounded.

He cited the case of a group of Pakistanis who claimed asylum because of their membership of the Pakistan People' Party and appealed against refusal - even though the PPP had since become the government of Pakistan.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in