In Part II of the report the Select Committee analysed the position of the Vietnamese in Britain. It concluded that the Vietnamese have continuing difficulties for which special help is required. The reply accepts that conclusion.
Currently the Government is supporting the three voluntary refugee agencies in a three year Programme, the aim of which is to develop the capacity of the Vietnamese community and of statutory and voluntary services to the point at which the Vietnamese can become self-reliant and integrated. In the light of the Committee's report and our own assessment we have decided to increase funding of the Vietnamese Programme by 50%, from its present level of £260,000 a year, and to extend the Programme for a further full year, that is until March 1988.
The two main problems facing refugees are unemployment and housing. The Government is to respond positively to the recommendation that a Joint Working Group be established of Home Office, MSC and refugee agency representatives. It will establish an informal group with this membership which will be concerned in particular with the need for the other, smaller, refugee groups with special labour market needs to have access to relevant education, training and employment provision. We believe that housing is a problem facing all refugees (not just the Vietnamese) and to help the British Refugee Council tackle this, we shall this year provide extra funding to enable it to appoint a housing development officer.
The third part of the report included a number of recommendations about asylum procedures. The reply recognises the concern expressed by the Committee at the length of time taken to decide initial asylum applications, and outlines a number of measures that are being taken to reduce delays. On many of the matters covered in this part of the report the Committee's recommendations are accepted or other ways of meeting its concern are being sought. The main issue on which we have been unable to accept the Committee's view is its recommendation that a decision in principle should be taken to extend the right of appeal to all asylum applicants. At present most unsuccessful asylum applicants already have a right of appeal in this country to the immigration appellate authorities. The main category where there is no formal right of appeal before removal is those refused entry at the ports. To provide such a right of appeal would in our view result in a substantial increase in unfounded applications from people who simply wished to prolong their stay in this country while an appeal is heard. The response argues that there are already a number of safeguards, including a procedure for referring cases of unsuccessful asylum applicants to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, which ensure that they are fully reviewed before removal.
I am copying this letter to Charles Powell, Peter Ricketts, to the Private Secretaries to other members of H Committee and to Michael Stark.
ever
Your
Billion
WR FITTALL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.