in the UK was clear and complete, some Italian official reports only exist in summary form for both chambers, thus making the investigation more difficult. In the Senate they are divided into three main categories: debates within the first standing Committee for Constitutional Affairs (Trattazione in Commissione), debates within different standing committees that consider points in common to a particular bill (Trattazione in Consultiva) and finally, debates on the Floor of the House (Trattazione in Assemblea). In the first two instances – Trattazione in Commissione and Trattazione in Consultiva – debates are only available in a form of summary (resoconto sommario), that is a synthesis of the speakers’ speeches. In the last case instead – Trattazione in Assemblea – debates are normally recorded word by word because it is a public session. The full stenographic reports (resoconti stenografici) therefore, exist only in the last case. At this stage there is not much debate going on because the available time is mainly dedicated to voting on the amendments. The initial proposals to the bill as a whole are discussed in the earlier stages in the Cabinet, before the official presentation in one of the two Chambers. This means that it is not possible to access the debates from beginning to end, making impossible the task of knowing exactly when and why each amendment was proposed and the consequent reactions.
This has the effect of making the Italian policy-making process non-transparent. This problem was overcome as far as possible through the analysis of other material and sources. These were the media articles of the time reporting the discussion in Parliament, briefings and e-mail exchange41 between charities, NGOs, and experts, and finally the interviews. The latter in particular, served the purpose to triangulate and confirm the evidence found and also to clarify
41 The access to the e-mails and briefings was possible thanks to the efforts made by Sergio Briguglio – one of the interviewees and external expert on most migration matters including asylum – to maintain a website dating back to 1992. This website contains articles and e-mail messages on everything related to
immigration and asylum. It also contains information on the legislation.
74
some other aspects missing from the debates. These rules are included in article 33 of the Senate Rules (Senato 1971).
The Chamber of Deputies follows roughly the same formula. There are debates within the first standing Committee for Constitutional Affairs, debates within different Committees and finally, debates within the Assembly. As for the Senate, only the debates on the Floor of the House are public according to article 63.1 of the Chamber of Deputies Rules (Camera dei Deputati 1971) and as such, exist in full. The others only exist as a summary. The debates were nevertheless still a useful starting point to understand the differences and the dynamics at work between the majority and the opposition.
The availability of interviewees varied. Some policy-makers did not respond to the requests sent or refused to take part because of their current positions in government or because of the difficult situation of the government at the time of contact. However, this last point is only relevant for the Italian case. At the time, there were some important issues the Berlusconi government was dealing with. These were the imminent trial of the Prime Minister42 and other political disagreements that caused some friction within the ruling coalition and lead some of the Prime Minister’s closest supporters to leave the coalition; and finally the dire economic situation of the country that ultimately led to the resignation of Berlusconi and the fall of the government. On average, however, the participants were ready and happy to take part to the interviews both in person and over the phone despite the fact that they needed to recollect information dating back to 2002. Some interviewees just needed reminding of crucial points about the law to juggle their memory. Asking people to recollect what has happened years before poses both a challenge because they may not remember but also the benefit of having time for reflection. In terms of memory, Richards (1996) mentions that at times, the memory of ex-politicians can be problematic as they “often encounter pathological difficulties in distinguishing the truth, so set have their minds become by long experience of partisan thought”
(Seldon 1988 quoted in Richards 1996, 201). In some cases on the other hand, the passage of time gave respondents time to reflect on what had transpired then and since. This may have provided a more thoughtful response but it might also mean that an attempt was made to justify
42 In relation to the so-called ‘Rubygate scandal’.
75
actions taken in light of subsequent circumstances. Mediation was therefore central and not only because part of the sample was constituted by politicians experienced in the art of interviewing.
For example, when interviewing David Blunkett I felt at times that he was rehearsing a part (e.g.
repeating something he had said many times before – as former Home Secretary – about the situation of asylum in 2002). Only towards the end of the interview, when he was asked if he would have done something differently, his expression changed as he perhaps realised that some things could have been done in other ways. The interview with Lord Dubbs had instead a whole different feel. As a former refugee himself and former head of the Refugee Council, he seemed to be speaking from a personal point of view and out of personal experience. Each interviewee had a story to tell which was either influenced by their current or previous position or personal circumstances. One way to deal with this issue of mediation is reflexivity (Baxter and Eyles 1997; Rice 2009). Reflexivity is important “to recognise the different power relationships that exist between” interviewer and interviewees (Flowerdrew and Martin 2005, 113) especially in the case of elite interviewing. As a result, several people who held different positions and perspectives were interviewed about the same set of events, it is possible to evaluate and weight their accounts against each other and documentary sources. Furthermore, discussion guides were created in Italian and English and reflected the research questions. They were tailored according to the interviewees’ expertise and the part they played in the making of the policy.
Consent to record interviews was obtained in all cases.
Civil servants could be a good alternative if politicians cannot remember or are not available. In the UK, the issue was that “the Home Office has no institutional memory”
(interview with Home Office official43) as civil servants tend to move to new positions often. In fact, only three civil servants who were working at the time were reached. As they are deemed to be good observers, they were able to recollect the general atmosphere within the Home Office as the NIA bill was under way, including the gossips. For example, there were rumours that the locations of accommodation centres were not chosen randomly or based on availability but purposefully in wealthy, conservative areas. This was perhaps a party political reaction to the dispersal system implemented with the 1999 Act. According to this, asylum seekers were
43 Interview date: 9th October 2008.
76
dispersed in poor and disadvantaged areas of the countries, mainly in Labour constituencies.
This caused resentment and violence in the local communities.
For the Italian case, the prefects were an essential source of knowledge and information as they followed very closely the development of the Bossi-Fini.
3.4 CONCLUSION
The chapter has highlighted the methodological framework adopted that has allowed the analysis to be carried out. As such, a mix of methods – quantitative data as a background to the research, collection of different sources of data, comparative analysis and coding of interviews – was key to the thesis and helped frame the research questions.
The methodology proved thorough despite some difficulties. These were mainly related to working on two countries with different political systems and historical trajectories as well as ethics and consequent governments’ behaviour towards asylum.
The following two chapters concentrate on the two countries’ historical and political developments in terms of immigration and asylum legislation.
77
CHAPTER 4
HISTORICAL AND CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
The aim of this chapter is to set the historical and political context that led to the creation of the 2002 Nationality Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Act. As a “very hot button” issue (interview with Dr Metcalfe44), asylum has been subjected to a huge campaign of politicisation as well as de-politicisation through the years (interview with Professor Guild45). The topic has been used to win votes as both Labour and Tory have seen an “electoral advantage in taking a particularly strong line against asylum seekers” (interview with Dr Metcalfe) depicted as a threat to the state’s unity and its welfare system. It has also been put in a corner when it was becoming too uncomfortable to talk about it (Freeman 1995; Perlmutter 2000) and the subject was switched to the economic benefits of highly-skilled migration.
The chapter concentrates firstly on the historical developments in terms of immigration and asylum legislation46 following a chronological order culminating in the 2002 NIA Act. The inclusion of the legislation history is important to understand, firstly, the then climate surrounding asylum and how it was perceived to be a threat to the nation-state’s identity, interests and sovereignty by politicians. Secondly, it provides a context to compare the attitude of the two countries under study towards asylum. The nature of the state to a considerable extent determines how asylum is dealt with by the government.
The second part discusses the difficulties of UK governments in dealing with asylum (hence the need to create new asylum legislation every three years) and their relationship to the nature of the welfare state. The rise in numbers, the huge backlog of claims never dealt with by the Tories and a more than hostile right-wing media – whose harsh criticism against the new government’s inability to deal with ‘bogus’ asylum seekers fuelled public opinion fears – urged the Labour government to pass new legislation in 1999. However, because the situation in the eyes of the government did not improve, it promised to overhaul the asylum system with a new
44 Justice. Interview date: 1st October 2008.
45 Interview date: 9th October 2008.
46 See Appendix 11 for the list of main asylum legislation developments in the UK.
78
White Paper in 2001 followed by new legislation in 2002, the NIA Act. Furthermore, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to take asylum matters into his own hands in order to reduce radically the number of asylum claims. This part of the chapter contains also the examination of the most controversial issues47 within the NIA Act and denounced by NGOs and charities but also by those local communities that felt ‘threatened’ by the government’s plans to build accommodation centres in their small urban and rural (but often wealthy) areas. This section concludes with a brief comparison of the 1996, 1999 and 2002 Acts, showing a continuity of restrictive policies between Conservatives and Labour.
The third part of the chapter discusses the political aspects related to the development of the asylum debate. It examines factors that shaped the policy of those years, such as the role of the media in influencing public opinion and possibly policy, and the gap between politicians’
rhetoric which favoured restrictions and actions which accepted asylum seekers anyway. This discrepancy shows a tension between domestic policies on the one hand – geared towards the preservation of the British nation-state and the protection of its citizens – and on the other hand the duty to safeguard asylum seekers according to the conventions and treaties signed and ratified by the UK.
4.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN LEGISLATION: A CONVERGENCE OF