Ever wondered how party policy is made? I was on the “Immigration, Asylum and Identity” Policy Working Group, and the process has taken a whole year. Living in the north east, I daren’t begin to add up the cost of the fares, and food on the move, for meetings every 10 days on an evening in London, but it was an opportunity to get some good and Liberal policies for the Party for those asylum seekers who seek sanctuary in the UK.
Between March and summer was spent on taking evidence, and formulating questions for the consultation session at the September Conference. I looked at every piece of evidence relating to asylum issues, and did a mammoth cutting and pasting on them. Then for the actual putting the policy together, right up to the week before Christmas. After Federal Policy Committee in January “Making Migration Work for Britain” was published, ready for conference. I was pleased that there was a good debate, with interventions.
I didn’t agree with the wording of everything, either in the policy paper or motion, but I was given the chance to put the case to the rest of the working group, and was listened to. Asylum is just one of eight sections in the paper, and it probably took up more than 1/8th of the time. I must thank Andrew Stunell who chaired and steered us so well, it must have been the most difficult policy paper for a long time, with the current climate over immigration issues. His office, Policy Unit, and other members of the working group are to thank too. Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary were brilliant, giving me lots of much needed moral support, and feeding ideas and views, as well as facts and information. Most of all thanks to my husband, who was not only happy to support me, but picked me up at Darlington station at midnight each time, too!
Here is a flavour of some of the policies now agreed :
An end to the disgraceful, and expensive, practice of Indefinite Detention for immigration purposes.
An end to the inappropriate use of the notorious “Detained Fast Track” process.
The end to child detention to be put into legislation.
‘Getting it right first time’, on decision making.
Re-establish the 6 month decision-making target for asylum claims.
Better training for Home Office staff who deal directly with more vulnerable groups.
Better interpretation and translation services to be available at each stage of the process.
Accurate, up-to-date understanding of relevant Country of Origin Information must be provided to decision makers to stop removals to unsafe countries.
All working-age asylum seekers to be required to look for work if their case has not been resolved within 6 months. Current restrictions on which occupations asylum seekers can work in to be lifted.
Abolish the Azure Card and Section 4 and provide all asylum support under Section 95 which will be uprated in the same way as other benefits. End-to-end support will end destitution.
Outsourced contracts for the delivery of enforcement and asylum services (including housing) must be monitored more effectively, with more accountability and transparency in their work.
Deportation, transportation and the accountability of enforcement functions to be transferred to the public sector as soon as the current contracts permit.
LD4SOS are inspired by, and continue to be, driven by the experiences of those we know and know of who had been, or still are, seeking sanctuary in the UK. They deserve and must be treated with humanity, compassion and respect.
The work put into this is a tribute to those brave and dignified seekers of sanctuary. What we need to do now is to make sure they get into the manifesto, and we get enough good MPs elected to get these policies on the statute book.
* Suzanne Fletcher was a councillor for nearly 30 years and a voluntary advice worker with the CAB for 40 years. Now retired, she is active as a campaigner in the community both as a Lib Dem and with local organisations and author of "Bold as Brass?", the story of Brass Crosby.
14 Comments
I wonder if this may have missed the point? According to the following website, asylum applicants and their dependents comprised an estimated 7% of net migration in 2011, down from 49% in 2002, but up from 4% in 2010. If it’s still only a few percent of net migration, asylum seekers are not really what a significant proportion of UK voters are worried about. http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum
The recent deportation of a teenage school pupil to Mauritius is a disgrace in many people’s view, though many would disagree too. Are any of the policies listed here relevant to this case? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26859110
What an amazing travel commitment. As a matter of interest what proportion of the group were from outside (a) Greater London (b) the London commuter belt?
Richard – yes, those seeking asylum are only a small part of those coming into this country, although the public to tend to merge asylum and migration in their mind. The section on asylum was about concerns about how we treated them, rather than tackling public concern. the rest of the document concentrated on migration issues.
I agree with you about the removal of Yashika to Mauritius. It was shocking and needless. the sort of policy needed to deal with that was too detailed for it to be fitted into the policy paper, and is about not needlessly splitting families and allowing young people to finish exams. I got the impression that if it had been handled better, the whole family would have gone back voluntarily after the exams. I hope that the introduction in the policy paper to the asylum section covers how compassion is needed.
“Liberal Democrats want an improved asylum system which both strongly upholds the UN Convention and minimises the potential for abuse. That requires finding ways of establishing which asylum claims are genuine, whilst ensuring that people are treated humanely, with compassion and respect, including those who are to be returned. While these issues are complex and sensitive, we believe there is a better way to deal with asylum cases; one which doesn’t let asylum seekers suffer in detention centres or in poverty.”
hank you, Suzanne, for an enlightening account of how policy motions arrive at Conference. My respect for the policy working groups is sincere and we can only thank you all for the huge amount of voluntary hard work, which you have put into Making Migration Work for Britain.I agree with Suzanne’s comments on Yashika’s situation. One country which I believe has got its asylum policy almost right is Sweden where most asylum seekers do not enter detention (the detention estate is only 200)
…to continue (pressed the wrong button?) compared to the UK where 29,000 migrants per year are in detention,which is often first resort (DFT). Sweden achieves over 80% voluntary returns (which is a Government’s usual aim ) whilst the much more expensive (in all senses) UK system achieves a much lower % . By allocating a qualified case worker/supporter to each asylum seeker in the community the whole asylum process can be explained, support given and the advantages/disadvantages of return discussed calmly. Dawn raids, indefinite imprisonment and forced , occasionally violent removals are avoided. If Sweden and Australia can do it , so can the UK. It’s really not a big ask..
Australia apparently has 30,000 asylum seekers in detention, including children
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/government-dumps-free-immigration-advice-service-for-asylum-seek/5355570
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/199/11/mental-health-and-immigration-detention
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/57369/immigration-riot-australias-asylum-seeker-policy-illegal
Just to say thank you to Suzanne.Janet and others whose dedication to the Asylum seekers plight is a source of real pride.
This week we continued with the Immigration Bill in the Lords.So disappointed that on the main issues not only had the Conservatives given way on nothing major but that the Labour party also opposed Lib Dem amendments – today there wasn’t a solitary Labour front bench voice to support my amendment to reduce the time Asylum Seekers must wait (from 12 months to six months) before they can work.
Thank you very much Suzanne for enlightening info for LDV readers about the process and the conclusions of the working group. Clearly lots of hard work was done … by unpaid volunteers who paid their own way and gave up so much of their time. Like many LD policy reports of this type there was a bit of lack of clarity about the nature of the problems and how we define them, on the cost issues and how the ‘performance’ of the state and value for money for the public should be viewed, and more comprehensive international comparisons. Most importantly the reasons behind the ‘blunt instrument’ of state policy (and opaque decision-making) was not considered, nor the institutional structures in UK government which lead to such draconian measures despite a well intentioned political class – Labour and Tory. I also felt that the contracting out of parts of the processes, including detention, warranted closer inspection. A key question is WHY Sweden arrives at such a better set of outcomes for all concerned when facing very similar issues. These key points of necessary understanding behind the policy may have been carefully considered but if so they are not apparent at this stage. Good hard work nevertheless and we should all be grateful to the members of the working group.
Yes, Paul, there is loads more background and detail that I really would have like to be in there. But to be fair, the document had to be drastically cut down to fit with FPC guidelines – and to be fair to them, there is only so much that members would read (or indeed carry around with them if not e-enabled) for conference.
there was a lot more that was not in the final document.
Also we drew from detailed research by other organisations. For instance Detention Action has done a huge amount of detailed research on Indefinite Detention and alternative models. Still Human Still Here has done a lot of work and research on Right to Work.
The whole process has made me realise how unfortunately a subject can only be skimmed, even with all the work that went into this process. But the alternative would just cost too much, and take up too much time and resources. Although Asylum is only 1/8th of the policy document, a full time policy officer over the course of a parliament, a standing sub group of say 4 or 5 dedicated members, taking proposals to a wider group, say every 3 months, would produce something much better.
even then new issues constantly come up. The removal of Yashika and the death of the lady in Yarlswood have been topical this week, but would detailed policy that we implemented have made a difference ? which is where we are down to the overall principles that I’ve pasted in, in a comment above, from the introduction to the section.
As Andrew Stunell reminded us – we were not writing a Bill !
Suzanne is a True Star whose devotion to Liberalsim is lived and breathed through this excellent article.
On the Yashika case, this was clearly not any sort of genuine asylum case. If we are supposed to accommodate everyone who is being given a hard time by a family member, we really might as well give up pretending to manage immigration and asylum. See: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/mauritian-yashika-bageerathi-case-asylum-seekers?CMP=twt_gu
As for Suzanne saying “I got the impression that if it had been handled better, the whole (Yashika’s) family would have gone back voluntarily after the exams”, you are clearly a lovely person with a better view of human nature that the hard world warrants. When did any asylum seeker voluntarily go back?
I got the impression that if it had been handled better, the whole family would have gone back voluntarily after the exams
Whether genuine or not, we need to be human beings. The treatment meted out to this vulnerable 19-year old girl should never have been as brutal as it was.
http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2014/04/yashika-bageerathi-s-deportation-and-institutional-heartlessness-our-asylum?title=&text=
“Ever wondered how party policy is made”
First of all, let me thank you for your dedication and hard work for this very good cause. The question I have though us that even if brilliant and right-thinking policies are made by the efforts if you and others and voted for by Conference delegates, isn’t it true that this in no way guarantees that Lib Dem parliamentarians will vote for those policies in Parliament? This happened with Secret Courts and also it seems with the BecroomTax according to a recent thread here on LDV andIbelieve with other issues too.
Apologies but my keyboard is dyslexic