Asylum Amnesty - 5th June 2011

Whilst there are undoubtedly frustrations of being in government (for example, you spend half your time trying to find out what the government machine is actually doing – and most of the rest of your time trying to stop it), my recollection is that there are very few consolations indeed for being in opposition, but I do remember one: you could answer almost every letter of complaint by agreeing with the writer that the situation was dreadful and something ought to be done about it. In government however, you have to defend the government’s policy and its actions.

This week I have had lots of irate correspondence from constituents outraged and angry at what has been presented and perceived as an amnesty for asylum claimants. This is particularly galling because during the televised debates between the three party leaders in the general election campaign, David Cameron specifically targeted and attacked the Liberal Democrat policy of granting an amnesty.

The fact is that there has been no amnesty, but there is no doubt that the coalition government inherited a chaotic situation. Part of the poisoned legacy was the discovery in 2006 of files containing a backlog of almost half a million unprocessed asylum claims, and that 75,000 of the claimants  had since simply disappeared. The new government pledged to address the outstanding claims within a year. The allegation is that they have done this by writing them off, in effect granting an amnesty because only 10% of the claims have been rejected while 40% have been granted leave to remain. If there had been an amnesty then all the cases would have been granted leave to remain without a detailed assessment of the merits of each case - but that assessment has taken place. In making the assessment and reaching a decision in each case, officials - and the ministers to whom they are responsible - have had to have regard to the likely outcome of appeals if a claim is refused.

The fact is that given the outrageous backlog many of the claimants have already been here for eight or nine years and that consequently the courts would have granted appeals on the grounds of the claimant’s human rights. [Of course, I stood on a manifesto at the election to repeal the Human Rights Act, but my party didn’t win a majority with which to deliver such a pledge - perhaps next time. In the meantime we have to deal with the law as it is and not what we wish it to be].

Clearing the backlog is an essential step to getting a grip on the current situation. During the period 1997-2009 the UK saw net migration of well over 2 million people - twice the population of Birmingham. This is the highest level of immigration ever in our island history. Reasserting control of our borders is a work in progress that will take time to fully implement. The coalition has already put in place an annual cap on non-EU migration and a point based system to ensure we only import the skills we actually need. It is in the process of fundamentally reforming the system of student visas which was the most common source of immigration abuse. Measures are being implemented to clamp down on sham marriages and require more stringent standards of proficiency in the English language. The first of the new removal centres was opened this month and illegal immigration will be further addressed by a proper border policing command as part of the new National Crime Agency - but none of these things can be achieved overnight, however frustrating that may be.