An Escalation of the “Third Way” Anti-Social Programme

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Queen's Speech:
An Escalation of the “Third Way” Anti-Social Programme

Tripling of University Fees Further Attacks Right to Education

Elementary Rights to be Violated under Civil Contingencies Bill

The State’s Arsenal of Legislation

New Onslaught Against Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Articles 31 -33 of the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

Response of the Refugee Council to the Government's Proposals

Bill Morris Condemns Queen’s Speech Proposals on Asylum Seekers

TUC Initial Response to Queen's Speech

Benjamin Zephaniah Refuses an OBE in Protest against Colonialism

The Queen’s speech yesterday represents the escalation of the government’s “Third Way” anti-social offensive of its second term in the context of the agenda of the “war against terrorism”, of putting the burden of the capitalist crisis onto the backs of working people, of delivering social programmes to the benefit of the rich, and of attacking democratic rights under the banner of “social justice”.

            The intention to impose £3,000 tuition fees onto students is a further attack on the conception that education is a right and that society has the responsibility to educate the new generations.

            The proposals regarding “failed asylum seekers”, “groundless appeals” and “fraudulent claims” are a further attack on human rights, and take further the conception that people seeking asylum are less than human and are to be treated as such.

            Following swiftly on the Queen’s Speech, the Immigration and Asylum Bill is to be unveiled, at the same time as details of a new “crackdown” on those seeking asylum.

            Central to the onslaught against the people in the Queen’s Speech is the Civil Contingencies Bill. Under the banner of fighting terrorism, it is to codify in legislation the arbitrary draconian authority of the state to declare states of emergency and authorise the police to act with impunity.

            Simultaneously with the proclamation of the government’s programme, it released an advertising campaign about the “big conversation” that Tony Blair is to hold with the people. This is patently a cruel deception that will not fool the mass of the people. While such “consultation” is being carried out, the will of the people against war and for a social programme that puts their interests first is being not only ignored but flouted with contempt. The working class and people do not want a big conversation but want to be the decision makers. While their will is flouted, they must step up the opposition to the “Third Way” programme which is revealing its reactionary essence.

The government is proposing that England’s universities charge students tuition fees of up to £3,000 a year, according to the proposals outlined in the Queen’s Speech.

            The “top-up fees”, which will effectively triple the cost of university for undergraduates, were one of several measures that will be put before Parliament in a new Higher Education Bill. Under the proposals, “upfront tuition fees” for university students will end in 2006. Instead students will have to pay back the fees after they graduate and are earning more than £15,000 a year. Ironically the Queen’s Speech promised that legislation would be introduced “to enable more young people to benefit from higher education”, and that, “universities will be placed on a sound financial footing”. But far from carrying out this promise, the government’s plans  make clear the intent to speed-up the creation of a two-tier higher education sector, which will comprise a handful of well-funded elite universities, while the remainder are increasingly starved of resources. Student debt, which has gone up 150% in recent years, will increase, and many students will be discouraged from entering university education.

            The government’s plans are opposed by the two other main parties in Parliament, as well as by many Labour MPs. Already over 100 Labour MPs have signalled their opposition to the proposed Bill. The National Union of Students (NUS) and the two university teaching unions, NATFHE and AUT, have openly opposed the proposals and reiterated their opposition this week in a joint letter to The Times. The NUS are organising a national demonstration against “top-up fees” on December 3. Indeed opinion polls show that the vast majority of people in the country are opposed to the government’s plans.

            Before the introduction of the existing tuition fees, the government claimed that this would be the measure to solve the problem of the funding of higher education, but this has not been the case. Many universities as well as many students are in debt and it is estimated that investment of £10 billion is needed in the next three years. The fact is that higher education is facing the same crisis as the primary and secondary sectors and funding is being cut, a situation that is creating anger amongst all sections of the people. Increasingly people are questioning why a government which can finance foreign wars of aggression is unable to find the resources to adequately fund education, one of the most important investments a society can make in its future. What is being demanded is that education should be made freely available to all, at the highest standard as a right.

The Civil Contingencies Bill, under the banner of fighting terrorism, is to further codify in law the absolute power of the state to suspend all civil liberties and violate such elementary rights as that of association by the declaration of states of emergency. This comes less than a week after the massive opposition to George W Bush and the Blair government’s warmongering alliance with him was held up as an example of the “freedoms” that are possessed in Britain.

            The Civil Contingencies Bill could give the government powers to detain “terror suspects”, cordon off and evacuate whole areas, search all buildings and people within the cordon, and post shoot-to-kill state forces around the boundary of the area where the emergency has been declared and seize and impound property and assets of “suspected terrorists”. It will replace the 1920 Emergency Powers Act and the 1948 Civil Defence Act. It is reported that for the first time the government would have the power to declare a state of emergency on a regional as well as a national basis, and then seek parliamentary approval of its decision within seven days. Under this regime demonstrations can be arbitrarily banned, and curfews declared throughout whole areas and regions.

            The legislation could also give the Chancellor new powers to seize control of the financial markets, the money supply and the Bank of England in the event of a “terror” strike.

            The legislation will specify operational police powers, setting out that emergency powers can be used in response to “terrorist” incidents. In the event of a "catastrophic incident" the government will be able to make emergency regulations to evacuate danger areas or seize specialist equipment. The Bill is also likely to widen the definition of what constitutes an emergency to include serious disruption to the political, administrative and economic stability of the country, it is reported.

            The arbitrary powers could apparently be declared by junior ranking police officers who could decree the cordoning off of an area. This could be done first, and the permission of the judiciary can be obtained in a rubber stamp afterwards.

            This follows Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens’ claim that such police state powers are “absolutely essential”. In comments made on Sunday, the Commissioner used the car bomb attacks on the British consulate and British HSBC bank in Istanbul to justify the passing of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

            Such “anti-terrorism” legislation has always been pushed through under such emergency pretexts. It is not designed to solve any problem but first and foremost to criminalise political struggles and opposition to the state’s agenda, which is always presented as the most humane and reasonable. The original Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed in 1974 in the wake of the Birmingham pub bombings, and under it countless well-publicised miscarriages of justice were perpetrated.

            Reports have said that the government's final legislation is likely to concede that the emergency regulations can be overturned if they breach the Human Rights Act or other laws. Initially the Cabinet Office had said a derogation from the Human Rights Act could have been sought in certain circumstances. However, what reliance can be placed on these reports can be seen from the fact that the present unending “state of emergency” has involved the derogation from articles of the Human Rights Act.

            Under the pretext of putting in place measures to fight terrorism or other “catastrophic” situations, the government is codifying into legislation its power to act with arbitrary force, regardless of the rights of the working class and people. The new legislation adds to the overkill of the already huge mass of legislation which not only tears up any so-called guarantees of democratic rights and freedoms, but is at hand to clamp down on any popular unrest, while the main enemy is portrayed as “international terrorism”. It also adds to the legislation prohibiting the organised workers and their trade unions from fighting in defence of their collective interests. The working class and people cannot accept that under the banner of fighting terrorism or any other pretext the state is given the legislative power to use its supreme force against the people and to criminalise protest, dissent and struggle for the people’s interests, but must vigorously oppose all such legislation.

Acts of Parliament in Britain from 1988 to the present relating to the powers of the state:

2003
Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003
Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003
Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003

2002
Football Disorder Amendment Act 2002
Justice (Northern Ireland) 2002
Police Reform Act 2002
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Anti-terrorism, crime and security Act 2002

2001
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
International Criminal Court Act 2001
Private Security Industry Act 2001

2000
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000
Football Disorder Act 2000
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Police Northern Ireland Act 2000
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2000

1999
Access to Justice Act 1999
Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

1998
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) (Amendment) Act 1998
Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
Data Protection Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
Landmines Act 1998
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998
Northern Ireland (Sentencing) Act 1998
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998
Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998

1997
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997
Civil Procedures Act 1997
Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997
Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997
Crime Sentences Act 1997
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997
Firearms (Amendment No 2) Act 1997
Justice of the Peace Act 1997
Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997
Sexual Offenders Act 1997
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

1996
Asylum and Immigration Act 1996
Criminal Investigation and Procedures Act 1996
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996
Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996
Police Act 1996
Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996
Reserve Forces Act 1996
Security Services Act 1996

1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1995
Geneva Convention (Amendment) Act 1995
Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995
Proceeds of Crime Act 1995

1994
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
European Union (Accessions) Act 1994
Intelligence Services Act 1994
Police and Magistrates Court Act 1994
Race Relations (Remedies) Act 1994
Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994

1993
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993
Criminal Justice Act 1993
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
Sexual Offences Act 1993

1992
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1992
Prison Security Act 1992

1991
Criminal Justice Act 1991
Football (Offences) Act 1991
War Crimes Act 1991

1990
Computer Misuse Act 1990

1989
Extradition Act 1989
Football Spectators Act 1989
Official Secrets Act 1989
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
Security Service Act 1989

1988
Criminal Justice Act 1988
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
Immigration Act 1988
Legal Aid Act 1988

Compiled by Statewatch

In the Queen's Speech, the government announced its intention to bring forward new legislation in the upcoming parliamentary session aimed at furthering the attacks on refugees and asylum seekers. This will be the fifth major change to asylum law in the last 10 years and the third major piece of asylum legislation initiated by the Labour government since it came to power in 1997, its most recent being the notorious Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002.

            The government's proposals, which were put forward in October by Home Office Ministers Beverly Hughes and David Lammy, include a range of measures aimed at further restricting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers and harassing them. A number of commentators have noted that these proposals almost certainly breach international law and, in particular, the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The government-proposed measures include the criminalisation of asylum seekers who arrive in Britain without the necessary documentation, which would contravene Article 31 of the 1951 Convention; the expulsion of asylum seekers to "safe third countries" and the abolition of the right of appeal in such cases; the replacement of the two-tier asylum appeal system with a single-tier system; the seizing and placing into care of the children of asylum seekers who have had their applications refused and extending the power of the Immigration Services to raid solicitors' offices. The utterly reactionary nature of these proposals is such that even Michael Howard, leader of the Tories, denounced them in parliament as “despicable” and as having "gone further than any civilised system should go".

            These proposals of the Labour government expose its thoroughly reactionary character. They are based on the logic of the financial oligarchy that finance capital and imperialist troops are free to enter any country and create havoc and chaos. However, if the peoples of these countries flee their homes to save their lives and those of their families, then it is quite in order to categorise them as "bogus" and "illegal" and persecute them as if they have no rights as human beings. The working class and democratic people must take a stand against this racist and chauvinist programme of the oligarchy and their government.  They must make the stand that they are no "illegal" human beings and stand full square with the asylum seekers and refugees in defence of their rights as human beings. They should also be mindful that these attacks on asylum seekers are an attack on all, and that measures introduced as part of the scapegoating of asylum seekers, such as ID cards, are directed against the working class and people as a whole, a step in criminalising or declaring “illegal” this section of the people to spearhead the attacks on all.

Article 31 REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2 . The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

  Article 32 EXPULSION

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2 . The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.

3 . The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.

Article 33 PROHIBITION OF EXPULSION OR RETURN (“REFOULEMENT”)

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

2 . The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

The Government proposes to replace the current two-tier appeal structure with a single appeal to a new single-tier Tribunal, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), headed by a President. The Government is looking at ways to restrict access to the higher courts.

• The Refugee Council is opposed to this proposed reduction of appeal rights. There are already mechanisms available to prevent abuse. A significant proportion of cases succeeds at Tribunal level indicating a continuing need for such scrutiny.
• We are extremely concerned about the suggestion of further reductions in access to judicial review, which we regard as an essential constitutional safeguard.

The Government proposes to introduce measures, which would ensure that those asylum seekers who arrive without valid documents without a good explanation or have travelled through a safe third country or who apply for asylum late, would have this taken into account when considering the credibility of their claim. Two new criminal offences are proposed for being undocumented without good explanation and for failing to cooperate with redocumentation. There is also a proposal to look at including powers to require carriers to take copies of passengers’ identity documents before they travel.

• We are concerned that this further criminalisation of asylum seekers in the face of reduced options for safe and legal transit is in contravention of our obligations under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention.
• There are already more than sufficient offences available, which are currently regularly used.
• There is anecdotal evidence that such prosecutions are currently pursued inappropriately and without adequate safeguards.
• We are opposed to the extension of immigration duties to carriers.

The Government proposes to remove the right of appeal on Convention and ECHR grounds from individuals being removed to “a safe third country”. The act of travelling through a safe third country will affect the credibility of an asylum claim.

• We are opposed in principle to the designation of countries as safe for all people for all time and believe that decisions subsequently made are driven by political rather than human rights considerations.
• People are not obliged to seek asylum at the first available opportunity and to link a failure to do so to credibility is a matter of great concern.
• If the proposal is about transferring responsibility to safe third countries this should be subject to the procedural safeguards enumerated by UNHCR.
• Denying the right of appeal against removal to a safe third country will seriously compromise refugee protection.

The Government proposes to remove support from families in a position to leave the UK. Support under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 will not be available to asylum seeking families. If necessary, children will be separated from their families.

• Whilst we accept that families that have reached the end of a fair and transparent determination process should be assisted to return, we consider removal of support whilst still in the UK to be inhumane.
• Most seriously the implication that children could be taken from their parents and placed in care flies in face of the principles of the Children Act where the well-being of the child is paramount.

The Government proposes to extend the Immigration Services Commissioner's current powers to enable entry to a solicitor's office and to require production of relevant documents and an explanation of them. It is also considering placing a duty on designated professional bodies to provide timely information to the Commissioner. There would also be a new criminal offence of advertising or offering to provide immigration advice or services when unqualified.

• We welcome any measures that facilitate the regulation of the quality of immigration advice and believe that more effective use of regulatory mechanisms is a far better option than the proposed restrictions to legal aid.

Sir Bill Morris* said yesterday in a press release issued on his behalf:

“It would appear that yet again we see the Government thrashing around seeking to appease Middle England by attacking some of the weakest people on our shores. 

            “Asylum seekers with children receive meagre benefits which take away their ability to properly feed their children; they have already lost their right to earn money to feed and clothe their children; now it is apparently being threatened that their children will be taken from them if they don’t conform to the Government’s wishes and go ‘home’.

            “Using children to blackmail their parents is plumbing the depths of morality.  If this does appear in the Queen’s Speech, then asylum-seeking children have become the victims of a game that is impractical and goes against the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Act.

            “What does the Children’s Minister have to say on such a policy – I seem to remember the appointment was warmly applauded in last year’s Queens Speech? 

            “What has always been needed is calm legislation which addresses the real issues of managed migration, sharing the burden on a European basis.  The Home Secretary’s recent announcements on plans for economic migrants to fill much-needed jobs is to be welcomed.  Please can we have more quiet announcements rather than this hysterical nonsense which encourages asylum seekers  to be seen as the cause of all our problems.  They are not the cause, they are the victims.

            "With these announcements, the BNP stands ready to reap the rich reward of anti-asylum seekers votes.

            "Many of the asylum seekers whom we now threaten with the removal of their children and the removal of legal assistance to enable them to state their case, have fled tyranny in their own country; they can do without that tyranny here.”

             

* Sir Bill Morris will be speaking on behalf of asylum seekers held in Campsfield Detention Centre on Saturday 29 November 2003.  He will be joining a demonstration organised by the “Campaign to close Campsfield” at the Campsfield main gates 12noon-2.30pm.  (Details Bill MacKeith.  01865 558145).

            Sir Bill Morris is the former General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union and a campaigner on behalf of asylum seekers.

Reacting to the Queen’s Speech on Wednesday, Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, said:

            'There is much to welcome in today's Queens Speech.

            'Trade unionists in particular will welcome the employment relations, pensions and civil partnerships Bills and look forward to a draft Corporate Killing Bill being published later in the year.

            'We will be lobbying hard to make sure they make a real difference to people at work, and resisting any employer pressure to tone them down.'

Queen's Speech - Unison Reaction

Same sex couples; extension of rights and opportunities for disabled people; action on domestic violence; environmental measures and the focus on child protection are all welcome. Abolition of hereditary peers should bring our House of Lords into the 21st century.

            “We are pleased with the concentration on our public services - we too want to see them world class. We hope this means moves to genuinely improve our services in partnership with the workforce.

            “This must not be a signal for further privatisation, further foundation hospitals and increased tuition fees which will lead to inequality when much of the legislative programme is about ending inequality,” Dave Prentis said.

            While Unison welcomed moves to protect pensions and pensioners, Prentis said that the union wanted to see employers obliged to provide decent pension schemes to which they contribute and which are based on final salaries.

GMB Response to Queen’s Speech

Kevin Curran, General Secretary of the GMB, Britain’s General Union, responded to the Queen’s Speech:

            “There is very little in the speech for GMB members and they will be disappointed by yet another missed opportunity by their Government.

            “While we welcome the move towards the euro, it will be ineffective without a proper yes campaign. While we welcome the Pension Protection Fund, it may prove a disincentive to company schemes without equivalent compulsion for all.

            “While we welcome many of the small but significant changes the Government is planning, the only really radical agenda they are pushing forward is Top-Up Fees for which they have no one’s support.”

Black poet Benjamin Zephaniah has refused his appointment as an OBE from the Queen, describing it as a legacy of colonialism. He says in an article published in today’s Guardian that his refusal is because of his opposition to the policies and principles of the government and the monarchy.

            Describing his reaction to the unexpected arrival of a letter from the House of Commons earlier this month, he wrote: "Me? I thought, OBE me? Up yours, I thought. I get angry when I hear the word 'empire'; it reminds me of slavery, it reminds me of thousands of years of brutality, it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised."

            He added: "My obsession is about the future and the political rights of all people. Benjamin Zephaniah OBE - no way Mr Blair, no way Mrs Queen. I am profoundly anti-Empire."

            Benjamin Zephaniah went on to challenge Tony Blair to meet him to discuss the death of his cousin Michael Powell at Thornhill Road police station in Birmingham. "All that my family can do is join with all the other families who have lost members while in custody because no one in power is listening to them. Come on Mr Blair, I'll meet you anytime. Let's talk 'bout your Home Office, let's talk about being tough on crime."

            He said: "You can't fool me, Mr Blair, You want to privatise us all; you want to send us to war; you stay silent when we need you to speak for us; preferring to be the voice of the USA."