Joint Committee Human Rights - Tenth Report : The Treatment of Asylum Seekers

The context of our inquiry

1. The majority of asylum seekers and refugees worldwide come from countries affected by conflict, violence and human rights abuses. Most stay in their region of origin and only a very small proportion of those who leave come to the UK. The numbers worldwide have been falling and the largest reduction in asylum seekers over recent years is associated with those countries that, for the most part, saw reductions in armed conflict, increasing stability, or changes in government that reduced domestic human rights violations. The number of applications for asylum in the UK rose from 32,505 in 1997 to 84,130 in 2002, but has since reduced each year, with 25,715 applications in 2005.[1]

2. Nonetheless, the issue of asylum has rarely been higher on the political and public agenda. There are many reasons for this, but also some inherent contradictions. On the one hand there is anxiety about rapid changes in our communities, about actual and perceived conflicts of interest over resources, and about the failure of the asylum system in particular (and the Home Office in general) to deliver effective systems of management and delivery. Yet at the same time, the UK is experiencing economic growth, the majority of people in our society are financially better off and many are benefiting - directly and indirectly - from the processes of globalization which inevitably result in increased international migration as they open up new horizons for work, travel and family life.

3. The Government's approach to asylum has, in large part, been based on the assumption that many of those who arrive in the UK and claim asylum are not genuinely in need of protection but rather are economic migrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families.[2] This has been reflected in the development of policies which aim to deter and prevent would-be asylum seekers from coming to the UK, for example, through a significant reduction in the welfare and health benefits to which asylum seekers, especially those whose applications have been refused, are eligible to access. These are policies on which we and our predecessor Committee have frequently commented in the course of our legislative scrutiny work, often expressing concerns about the risk of destitution, the impact on the children of asylum seekers and asylum seekers being treated less favourably than others without objective justification.[3]

4. In this context, and given the rapid succession of policy changes that have been introduced over the last few years, we considered it to be particularly timely to conduct an inquiry into the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK. The focus of our inquiry was entirely on the treatment of asylum seekers. We have made no comment on who is, is not, should be or should not be an asylum seeker.

5. We make one preliminary observation about an important issue which has arisen in relation to various aspects of this inquiry. In paragraph 97 we conclude that there is no evidence that the pilot of section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 has encouraged more refused asylum-seeking families to leave the UK. In paragraph 110 we conclude that there is no evidence that the voucher system encourages refused asylum seekers to leave the UK. In paragraph 129 we regret the absence of evidence demonstrating the extent of what the Government describes as "health tourism" in the UK. In paragraphs 161 to 171, where we discuss charging for healthcare, we again draw attention to the lack of evidence underpinning Government policy. Finally, in his evidence the Home Office Minister Mr Liam Byrne MP stated that giving more asylum seekers the right to work would lead to a surge in abusive asylum claims,[4] although we received no evidence from the Government to support this assertion. We recommend that in the development of asylum policy the Government should proceed on the basis of evidence, rather than assertion, which evidence should wherever possible be published.