Background
On 5 February 1996, the Government introduced regulations which took away benefits from some asylum seekers and left them with no alternative means of support. These regulations were ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal on 21 June 1996 and asylum seekers regained their rights to welfare benefits. Despite very critical reports on the benefit restrictions (including a report by the Government’s own Social Security Advisory Committee, which recommended that the restrictions be scrapped entirely), on 24 June 1996, the Government reintroduced them as amendments to its own Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Following this, and as a result of a challenge by a destitute asylum seeker, the courts ruled that there was a duty under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide for individuals facing destitution. This led to thousands of asylum seekers becoming the responsibility of local authorities.
It was during parliamentary debates on the 1996 Bill that government and media discussion was suddenly filled with language distinguishing ‘genuine’ from so-called ‘bogus’ asylum seekers.
Designation of countries as ‘safe’
The first section of the 1996 Act gave the Home Secretary powers to designate countries or territories in which he believed ‘there is in general no serious risk of persecution.’ In practice, this meant that applications from nationals of those countries or territories would be assumed to be unfounded and could be certificated as such. These applicants had the right to appeal to an adjudicator but if the
certificate was confirmed, there was no further right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Expansion of the certification criteria
Section 1 also expanded the fast track appeals procedure to a wider range of asylum applicants, including anyone whose application was considered to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ or who arrived without documents or using a false document. This effectively meant that the fast track appeals procedure could be applied to almost any asylum application.
Restrictions to ‘safe third country’ appeals
Provisions in the 1996 Act meant that asylum seekers who were refused asylum on the grounds that they had travelled through a ‘safe third country’, would now only be able to appeal against the decision once they were removed to that country. Additional measures in the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 also limited the amount of time available to make an appeal. They also made conditions for bail more stringent.
New immigration offences, powers and penalties
Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the 1996 Act introduced new immigration related criminal offences such as obtaining entry or leave by deception and knowingly assisting asylum applicants and illegal entrants seeking to obtain leave by deception. These sections also increased police and immigration officer powers to deal with immigration offences and increased penalties.
Restrictions on employment
Section 8 of the 1996 Act made it a criminal offence to employ a person without permission to work in the UK. People found guilty of this offence would be liable for a fine of up to £5,000. As a result, employers have to show that they have seen and checked relevant documents proving that a potential employee is eligible to work in the UK.
Restrictions on entitlement to housing
Section 9 of the 1996 Act removed the right of asylum seekers to register for local authority housing. Section 6 of the Housing Act 1996, which came into force in January 1997, reinforced this measure by denying asylum seekers access to local authority housing. Asylum seekers in ‘priority need’ under the housing legislation only retained the right to temporary accommodation if they had applied for asylum on arrival in the UK, or if they had lodged an appeal against a negative decision on an asylum claim made prior to the date the regulations came into force.
Restrictions on entitlement to benefits
Sections 10 and 11 of the 1996 Act restored the benefit restrictions originally brought into force in February 1996 under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 and removed asylum seekers’ entitlement to child benefit.
