Advertisement

Exclusion of Vulnerable Groups from Equal Access to Social Security

The Case of Asylum Seekers in the UK
Conference paper
  • 647 Downloads
Part of the Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim book series (IMGB, volume 26)

Keywords

Social Security Supra Note Asylum Seeker Judicial Review Refugee Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gina Clayton, Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law (Oxford University Press, 2004) at 364.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Elihu Lauterpacht and Deniel Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of ‘Non-Refoulement’: Opinion (UNHCR, 2001) para. 90.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR, 1992) para. 28.Google Scholar
  4. 11.
    The Refugee Convention 1951: The Traveaux Preparatoire Analysed with a Commentary by the late Dr Paul Weis, (1995) 7 Cambridge International Documentary Series 378.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, as amended by Protocols Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 11. Other instruments, not in all cases fully recognised by the UK, are discussed in: Dallal Stevens, UK Asylum Law and Policy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Sweet and Maxwell, 2004) para. 426.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    ‘Thick’ and ‘thin’ rights are responses to concepts of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ needs discussed in: Glenn Drover and Patrick Kerans, New Approaches to Welfare Theory (Edward Elgar, 2003). ‘Thin’ needs are abstract, objective and universal and ‘thick’ needs are cultural and particular.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 S. 1 and 2 (the extent to which the inclusion of Convention obligations in primary legislation amounts to ‘incorporation’ was the subject of conflicting interpretations in the British Courts until 2004 when the Convention was judged to be clearly incorporated into domestic law (R v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex p Europeans Roma Rights Centre and others, [2004] UKHL)).Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    The Social Security (Persons Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    The Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996, Report by the Social Security Advisory Committee, Cm 3062, HMSO, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    House of Commons, Social Security Committee, First Report, Session 1995–6, Benefits for Asylum Seekers, 1/3 HMSO, January 1996. Evidence from Immigration Law Practitioner Association (ILPA) Annex A to Appendix 12; Child Poverty Action Group, Appendix 6, Part 2, 3.Google Scholar
  11. 21.
    R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (QBD) Queen’s Bench Division, 26 March 1996. Summary: Scoular J ‘Case Analysis’, 4 (1997) 2 Journal of Social Security Law 87.Google Scholar
  12. 22.
    R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p. B [1996] 4 All ER 385.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    Scoular, supra note 21, at 88.Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p. Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, supra note 22, Brown LJ at 401.Google Scholar
  15. 25.
  16. 26.
    Lord Ellenborough, CJ in R v Eastbourne (Inhabitants) (1803) 4 East 103 at 107, 102 ER 769 at 770 cited in ibid.Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    Brown L J at 402, ibid.Google Scholar
  18. 28.
  19. 30.
    For a period asylum seekers could still take work after 6 months of waiting for their asylum determination but this possibility too was cut off in July 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    Council Directive 2003/9/EC 27 January 2003: The Reception Conditions Directive OJ L31 6.2.03, at 18.Google Scholar
  21. 32.
    The Asylum Support Regulations SI 2000 No. 704 2000 6 (5) and Application Form attached, Note 8.Google Scholar
  22. 33.
    Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill, 2004: Briefing on Proposed Amendments 12 and 13 for the House of Lords Committee.Google Scholar
  23. 34.
    There were many critical reports including those from, or connected with, the Government, for example, Audit Commission, Another Country: Implementing Dispersal under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Audit Commission, June 2000); Home Office, Report of the Operational Reviews of the Voucher and Dispersal Schemes (October 2001).Google Scholar
  24. 35.
    Home Office, Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, CM 5387, (The Stationery Office Limited, February 2002).Google Scholar
  25. 37.
    NASS Policy Bulletin 75-Section 55 (Late Claims) 2002 Act Guidance.Google Scholar
  26. 38.
    Sir Stephen Sedley, Lecture delivered to Legal Action Group, cited in House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Asylum Applications, Second Report of Session 2003–2004 Vol. I, HC 218-I (House of Lords, 26 January 2004) para. 194.Google Scholar
  27. 39.
    R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 195.Google Scholar
  28. 40.
    R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 364.Google Scholar
  29. 41.
    R (on the application of T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 1941.Google Scholar
  30. 42.
    R (on the application of T) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1285.Google Scholar
  31. 43.
    R (on the application of Limbuela) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 540.Google Scholar
  32. 44.
    Laura Dubinsky and Joseph Middleton, ‘Public Law Update’ 25 June 2004 New Law Journal.Google Scholar
  33. 45.
    Home Office Policy Bulletin 75-Section 55 (late Claim) 2002 Act.Google Scholar
  34. 46.
    R (Limbuela) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66.Google Scholar
  35. 47.
    Ibid., House of Lords, Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause paras. 73, 75.Google Scholar
  36. 48.
    See social policy and political science policy-making and implementation literature e.g. Helen Bolderson ‘Ambiguity and Obscurity in Policy-Making for Social Security’ 10 (1982) 3 Policy and Politics 289–301.Google Scholar
  37. 49.
    Limbuela, Opinions, supra note 47, Lord Scott of Foscote, paras. 67, 68.Google Scholar
  38. 50.
    Pretty v United Kingdom 35 EHRR, 1,33, para.52.Google Scholar
  39. 51.
    Limbuela, Opinions, supra note 47, Lord Hope of Craighead, para. 54.Google Scholar
  40. 52.
    Council Directive, supra note 31, Article 16(2).Google Scholar
  41. 53.
    House of Commons, Debate, Vol. 193, c. 28W, 17.6.91; Home Office, Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2003, (Command Paper) 6363, at 10. Figures relate to principal applicants.Google Scholar
  42. 54.
    UNHCR, Asylum Applications Lodged in Industrialised Countries: Levels and Trends, 2000–2002, (Population Data Unit, UNHCR, 2003) at 4.Google Scholar
  43. 55.
    Discussion of the positions taken by Cranston (1967a, 1967b, 1973); Walzer (1983); Gewirth (1978:1982) Plant (1980) can be found in: Peter Jones, Rights: Issues in Political Theory (Macmillan, 1994).Google Scholar
  44. 56.
    Colin Harvey, ‘Dissident Voices: Refugees, Human Rights and Asylum in Europe’ 3 (2000) 9 Social and Legal Studies, 367–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 59.
    Council Directive, supra note 31, Article 2(c). Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, S. 18 (1).Google Scholar
  46. 60.
    Goodwin-Gill sees the reclassification of refugees as ‘displaced persons, illegal immigrants, economic migrants?etc.’ as a means by which states assert ‘greater freedom of action’ (given that none can claim the freedom to return a refugee to persecution): Guy Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law (Clarendon Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  47. 61.
    Laura Dubinsky and Joseph Middleton, supra note 44.Google Scholar
  48. 62.
    Alasdair Macintyre, After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory (Duckworth, 1985); Bhikhu Parekh, ‘Three Theories of Immigration’, in Sarah Spencer (ed.), Strangers and Citizens (Oram Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  49. 63.
    Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications (University of Chicago Press, 1982); Raymond Plant, ‘Free Lunches Don’t Nourish: Reflections on Entitlement and Citizenship’, in Glenn Drover and Patrick Kerans, supra note 14; Robert Goodin, ‘What is so Special about our Fellow Countrymen?’, 98 (July 1988) Ethics 663–686; Thomas Baldwin, ‘The Territorial State’, in Gross Hyman and Ross Harrison (eds.), Jurisprudence: Cambridge Essays (Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  50. 64.
    Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Martin Robertson, 1983).Google Scholar
  51. 65.
    James Hathaway, ‘Three Critical Questions about the Study of Immigration Control’, in Cornelius A. Wayne et al. (eds.) Controlling Immigration: a global perspective (Stanford University Press, 1994) at 49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations