Background
Although the UK had been a signatory to the Refugee Convention since 1954, the Convention was only incorporated through primary legislation into UK law through the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Before 1993, the majority of asylum seekers received a positive decision on their applications for leave and were allowed to stay in the UK. Refugees and asylum seekers were also entitled to social security, health, housing and other benefits.
The primary purpose of the 1993 Act was to deal with what the Government saw as a sharp increase in the number of people seeking asylum in the UK (asylum applications increased from 26,205 in 1990 to 44,840 in 1991). The Government hoped to respond to this by streamlining procedures and facilitating the fast removal of people whose applications were rejected. The UK immigration rules were amended to reflect these changes.
Incorporating the Refugee Convention
For the first time, the 1993 Act incorporated obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention into UK law. Section 1 of the Act defines a claim for asylum as being ‘… a claim made that it would be contrary to the UK’s obligations under the Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave the UK.’ Section 2 says that nothing in the immigration rules shall be contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This means that enforcement of the rules can be challenged in the courts in the light of the Refugee Convention and UN guidelines.
The immigration rules were simultaneously amended to include a set of criteria that the Home Secretary must take into account in determining an asylum application. The rules also state that a failure to disclose material factors may lead to refusal. They also list factors that could affect an applicant’s credibility. The Home Office was set a target of three years to make determinations on asylum claims.
The Act also gave the Home Secretary powers to refuse to process the asylum claim of anyone found to have travelled through a safe third country.
Appeals
The 1993 Act ensured that all refused asylum seekers would have the right of appeal with a full oral hearing. This gave in-country appeal rights to some groups of people who had previously not had them, for example port applicants and illegal entrants, preventing them from being removed until their appeal had been decided. But there were strict time limits for appeals. The Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules set out the detail and the time limits within which appellants would have to apply.
Fast track procedures
Schedule 2 of the Act introduced accelerated appeal procedures for cases that the Home Secretary declared not to ‘raise issue to the UK’s obligations under the Convention’ or to be ‘frivolous’ or ‘vexatious’. Applicants suspected of travelling through a safe third country were most likely to be affected by these procedures, as were other cases judged to be ‘without foundation’. The time limits for applicants going through the accelerated procedures were very tight. If refused on any of the above grounds, people would have to lodge an appeal within two days.
Mandatory fingerprinting
Section 3 of the Act gave the Government the power to fingerprint all asylum seekers and their dependents, including children. Asylum seekers failing to co-operate with this requirement could be arrested and detained. The immigration rules also state that failure to provide fingerprints could result in the refusal of asylum.
Extension of carriers’ liability
Section 12 extended the provisions of the Carriers’ Liability Act so that airlines and shipping companies must demand transit visas from passengers from selected countries wishing to travel via the UK enroute to another country.
Restrictions on access to housing
Section 4 and 5 and Schedule 1 of the 1993 Act reduced the duties of local authorities towards homeless asylum seekers. Assistance would only be offered on a temporary basis if no alternative accommodation of any kind was available. This meant that a different definition of homelessness would be applied to asylum seekers and their dependents and, for the first time, a specific group of homeless applicants would be singled out for reduced entitlements to housing.
