SUMMARY
In May 2003 we published a report on Asylum Removals. We have followed this up with a comprehensive look at other aspects of asylum policy. This supplements our specific comments on the Government's new asylum bill in our report published in December 2003.
In this report we first set out an overview of the asylum process. We then consider recent trends in asylum applications, looking at why people seek asylum in Europe in general and the UK in particular. We note evidence that conflict, not poverty, is the defining characteristic of asylum seekers' source countries, though not all those who come from such countries are genuine asylum seekers. We consider that, very roughly, about half of claimants can justifiably be regarded as economic migrants rather than refugees—although the two categories frequently overlap. It is likely there are some factors which over the past ten years or so may have made the UK a relatively more attractive destination than some others in Europe.
We note that the rise in asylum applications to the UK over the past 15 years has been so steep—a more than twenty-fold increase—that it is likely that any asylum system and any Government would have had difficulty in coping with it. We review the various measures taken both by this Government and its predecessor to respond to the increase. We hope that the need for any future 'amnesties' for asylum seekers can be avoided by discouragement of unfounded claims, fast and efficient processing of those claims when they are made, and rapid removal when claims have failed.
We welcome recent specific measures to improve border security, but repeat our recommendation in an earlier report for the creation of a unified frontier force.
We acknowledge recent progress in the processing of asylum claims. We support fast-track processes, the establishment of dedicated induction centres, and the Government's plans to introduce accommodation centres. We call for a flexible approach to the siting of such centres including the use of dispersed accommodation. We support the extension of the language analysis scheme which helps to detect nationality fraud.
There are certainly grounds for concern about the poor quality of much initial decision-making on asylum claims. The pressure to speed up the process may have led to an erosion in the quality of some initial decision-making. We recommend greater 'front loading' of the applications system, that is, putting greater resources into achieving fair and sustainable decisions at an earlier stage. This should include better provision of good quality legal aid and interpretation services at the initial stage. More interpreters and caseworkers with specialist knowledge of asylum seekers' claimed countries of origin should be recruited. There should be an independent review of the quality of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's decision-making on asylum applications. The Public Service Agreement targets on quality of decisions should be more challenging. The system should be properly resourced.
We welcome the fall in asylum applications in 2003. This is due in part to the Government's restrictive measures. As it becomes increasingly difficult to get into the UK to make an asylum claim, it must be the case that many people who would have a well-founded case for asylum will be unable to make a claim. There is agreement that a large proportion of asylum seekers arrive in the UK as the result of illegal people-smuggling operations conducted by criminal gangs. We also note that the asylum seekers who do manage to make a claim in the UK are not representative of the world's wider refugee population—they are more likely to be young, male, healthy, educated and with access to significant financial support, and less likely to be old, female, ill, uneducated or poor. We believe this creates a moral responsibility on the British Government to provide alternative legitimate means by which refugees can gain access to this country, to assist refugees closer to their country of origin, and to tackle the roots of enforced migration.
We consider the adequacy of support for asylum seekers in the UK, and conclude that the National Asylum Support Service is under-resourced, has too few trained staff, and insufficient local knowledge. An improvement in the performance of NASS should be a very high priority.
We discuss the operation of Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which prevents provision of support to asylum seekers unless they have made their asylum claim "as soon as reasonably practicable" after arrival in the UK. We agree that it is reasonable to expect genuine refugees to claim asylum at an early stage after their arrival in this country. However, we are disturbed by widespread claims that the operation of Section 55 is causing real distress, and may be having a counter-productive effect on other asylum policies. We call for an independent review of the working of Section 55. This should also consider the problem of failed asylum seekers who are unable to return to their countries because of the human rights situation there. We recommend that the Government should make appropriate use of the power to grant a temporary right to remain in the UK in the case of such people.
We consider some recent developments in relation to asylum detention and removals, considered in our earlier report, and make further recommendations. We emphasise the crucial need to integrate asylum decision-making, voluntary departure and compulsory removals.
We explore issues arising from the problem of illegal working, and call for more vigorous government action to tackle this. In particular we urge tougher action against employers of illegal labour, for instance by using the Proceeds of Crime Act.
We recommend that the Government should clarify its policy on economic migration.
We review recent EU developments, and recommend that the UK Government should work for greater Europe-wide consistency on the treatment of asylum seekers. We support the concept of regional 'zones of protection' for refugees. We also support the UK's participation in the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' quota refugee resettlement scheme, and call for this to be expanded. We recommend that if the number of successful asylum applications made in the UK declines, Ministers should increase the UK's resettlement quotas through the scheme each year by a proportionate amount.
Finally, we discuss various radical options for the processing of asylum claims. We consider proposals for renegotiation of or withdrawal from the UK's treaty commitments relating to refugees. We do not favour withdrawal from the 1951 Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights. However, we believe that the 1951 Convention needs updating; this should be done on the basis of international consensus.
We also consider schemes for the segregation of asylum seekers from wider UK society until their claims have been determined, in order to remove an incentive for economic migration. We conclude that these options could take significant time to implement and could be costly. The most effective course of action is likely to be continuing with the Government's current strategy and the early adoption of the recommendations in this report.
We believe the overriding priority is to maintain recent progress in improving the applications system, to reduce the backlog further and to increase both the fairness and the speed of the system. Efficiency should be combined with humanity. As we stated in our report on removals, "whether we are dealing with genuine asylum seekers or economic migrants we should never lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with human beings, not numbers, and they should be treated accordingly".[1] There is likely to be popular support for humane treatment of genuine refugees, and admission of manageable numbers of economic migrants with skills the country needs, as long as overall numbers are seen to be manageable, border controls are effective, and those who attempt to abuse the system are detected and removed.
We accept that a consequence of the necessary actions taken to tighten up the applications system will be that some people with genuine claims will be deterred. This makes it all the more important for the Government to pursue its efforts to assist refugees closer to their country of origin, and to co-operate with other European countries in taking action to tackle the root causes of migration.
| 
