House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence

18. Memorandum submitted by the Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees in the UK (ICAR)

ICAR is submitting to the Home Affairs Select Committee some information and data from its databases that may help to answer the first question: What are the reasons for the rise in asylum applications to the UK over the last 10 years? ICAR is providing the Select Committee, as it does other audiences and users, an easily accessible assembly of some of the latest evidence and research on asylum and refugee issues in the UK, along with some of its own information and commentary.

What are the reasons for the rise in asylum applications to the UK over the last 10 years?

GENERAL

1. There is too little research and data available on this subject to reach any firm conclusions. Policy makers may have to accept that the evidence for this question may always be conflicting and partial, and researchers that their findings are not the only influence on policy decisions. Even so ICAR believes that it would be useful to have more comparative analysis of UK statistics compared with other European countries; and that it would be extremely valuable if the Select Committee concluded that more research was needed to support policy-making in this area, that the Home Office be encouraged to continue to commission and publish research, and that research funders such as ESRC and Leverhulme to fund more independent research to broaden the body of data which might influence policy-making.

2. COMMENTARY ON THE STATISTICS ON ASYLUM APPLICATIONS TO THE UK

It is useful to put the asylum application figures to the UK over the last 10 years in a longer term context. Applications increased from less that 5,000 per year in 1985-88 inclusive, then jumped dramatically in 1989, and then again in the period 1999-2002.

2.1 Total asylum applications to the UK from 1985-2002 inclusive, excluding dependants:

1985 4,389

1986 4,266

1987 4,256

1988 3,998

1989 11,640

1990 26,205

1991 44,840

1992 24,605

1993 22,370

1994 32,830

1995 43,965

1996 29,640

1997 32,500

1998 46,015

1999 71,160

2000 80,315

2001 71,365

2002 85,865

Source: Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom

2.2 There is a public and political perception that the recent increase in asylum applications is a UK problem. In order to consider the validity of this perception, it is useful to look at asylum applications to other European countries over the same period. Those selected below show variable rates of increase (see table 1 below). The larger increase in the UK applications suggest that the causes might be due to UK specific factors, but not necessarily UK policies since rises have taken place during a period of generally restrictive policy measures across Europe (see Gibney, MJ and Hansen, R below).

Table 1: Asylum Applications in Europe 1990-2002, including dependants


	UK	Germany	France	Netherlands	Sweden

1990	33,540	193,060	54,810	21,210	29,420
1991	57,395	256,110	47,380	21,620	27,350
1992	31,495	438,190	28,870	20,350	84,020
1993	28,630	322,610	27,560	35,400	37,580
1994	42,020	127,210	25,960	52,570	18,640
1995	56,275	127,940	20,170	29,260	9,050
1996	37940	116,370	17,410	22,170	5,750
1997	41,600	104,350	21,400	34,440	9,660
1998	58,900	98,640	22,380	45,220	12,840
1999	91,085	95,110	30,910	42,730	11,230
2000	102,805	78,760	39,780	43,900	16,300
2001	91,350	88,290	47,290	32,580	23,515
2002	109,910	71,130	50,800	18,670	33,015

Source: Refugee Council (2002) Asylum by numbers 1985-2000; Home Office (31 July 2002) Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2001; Home Office (March 2003) Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2002 United Kingdom; UNHCR (March 2003), Asylum Applications Lodged in Industrialized Countries: Levels and Trends, 2000-02.

Notes on Table 1: In relation to European information it should be noted that states do not calculate statistics in uniform ways. Of particular relevance is the fact that the majority of European countries count every person named on an asylum application, whereas the UK counts only the principal applicant and does not include dependents. Thus, for the purposes of this comparison, the UK figures have been multiplied by 1.28, which is estimated by UNHCR to be the average number of persons per asylum case.

2.3 ICAR has produced a Statistical Snapshot Series for asylum applications to the UK by four groups of asylum seekers: Somalis, Iraqis, Zimbabweans, and Afghanis (see Tables 2-5) selected to explore the links between conflicts in the countries of origin and asylum applications from recently significant groups. The fluctuations coincide quite closely with known periods of conflict, repression and civil war in countries of origin, and quite strongly illustrate the role of non-UK specific push factors in the increase in applications.

Table 2: Somali asylum applications to the UK 1990-2002


	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	Total

Total number of asylum applications received	26,205	44,840	24,605	22,370	32,830	43,965	29,640	32,500	46,015	71,160	80,315	71,365	85,865	611,675
Asylum applications received from Somali nationals	2,250	1,995	1,575	1,465	1,840	3,465	1,780	2,730	4,685	7,495	5,020	6,465	6,680	47,445
Percentage Somali of total applications received (rank)	8.6% (4)	4.5% (8)	6.4% (6)	6.5% (6)	5.6% (6)	7.9% (2)	6.0% (4)	8.4% (1)	10.2% (2)	10.5% (2)	6.2% (6)	9.1% (3)	7.8% (4)	7.8% (N/A)
Number approved	350	275	2,235	3,120	1,580	2,215	3,595	2,000	2,705	185	8,885	4,775	800	32,750
Granted refugee status	275	50	25	45	5	10	15	985	2,330	130	5,310	2,845	605	12,630
Granted ELR	75	225	2,210	3,075	1,575	2,205	3,580	1,015	375	55	3,575	1,960	195	20,120

Total number of refusals	25	40	320	210	150	185	235	305	100	120	2,365	3,495	945	8,495

Between 1990 and 2002, Somalia featured consistently within the top 10 countries of origin for asylum seekers arriving in the UK, and topped the list in 1997. Indeed, although the figures prior to 1990 are not shown here, Somalia has featured consistently within the top 10 countries of origin over the past 17 years.

Table 3: Iraqi Asylum Applications in the UK


	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	Total

Total number of asylum applications received	26,205	44,840	24,605	22,370	32,830	43,965	29,640	32,500	46,015	71,160	80,315	71,365	85,865	611,675
Asylum applications received from Iraqi nationals	985	915	700	495	550	930	965	1,075	1,295	1,800	7,475	6,705	14,940	38,830
Percentage Iraqi of total applications received (rank)	4%	2%	3% (9)	2%	2%	2%	3% (10)	3%	3%	2%	9% (1)	9% (2)	17% (1)	6% (N/A)
Number approved	185	160	1,400	485	600	745	605	550	1,010	636	3,300	2,670	8,830	21,176
Granted refugee status	55	45	190	185	380	570	470	255	510	315	845	815	700	5,335
Granted ELR	130	115	1,210	300	220	175	135	295	500	320	2,455	1,855	8,130	15,840

Total number of refusals	10	15	40	30	45	50	60	110	90	100	2,220	6,210	2,955	11,935

— Of the top 10 asylum applicant producing countries within the period beginning in 1985 and ending in 2000, Iraq is placed eighth with the percentage of total applicants being 4%. Considering the considerable increase in the number of asylum seekers coming from Iraq over the last four years it is likely that Iraq would rank much higher in the period beginning 1990 and ending in 2002.

— The number of Iraqi applicants has risen steeply over the past year. In 2002, the number of applications from Iraqi asylum seekers was more than double the figure from 2001.

— While the rise in applications between 1998 and 2001 was paralleled by a decrease in the percentage of approved asylum claims, 2002 marked a noticeable shift in this trend. The claim approval percentage more than doubled during the first three quarters of the year. Whether or not this shift can be attributed to a growing likelihood of military conflict in Iraq is speculative.

— Iraqi applicants constituted the largest number of applicants received during the first three quarters of 2002 when compared to other countries of origin. The next largest number of applications during the same period was 6,035 from Afghanistan.

Table 4: Zimbabwean asylum applications to the UK


	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	Total

Total number of asylum applications received	26,205	44,840	24,605	22,370	32,830	43,965	29,640	32,500	46,015	71,160	80,315	71,365	85,865	611,675
Asylum applications received from Zimbabwean Nationals	N/A	N/A	20	40	55	105	130	60	80	230	1,010	2,115	7,695	11,540
Percentage Zimbabwean of total applications received (rank)	N/A	N/A	0.08%	0.18%	0.17%	0.24%	0.44%	0.18%	0.17%	0.32%	1.26%	2.96% (9)	8.96% (2)	1.89% (N/A)
Number approved	N/A	N/A	10	35	*	*	5	5	5	—	30	160	2,355	2,610
Granted refugee status	N/A	N/A	—	—	—	—	*	*	—	—	20	115	2,245	2,385
Granted ELR	N/A	N/A	10	35	*	*	*	5	5	—	10	45	110	225

Total number of refusal	N/A	N/A	5	15	20	45	90	115	45	105	525	1,950	3,870	6,785

— Zimbabwe did not rank within the top 10 asylum seeking nationalities in the UK over the period from 1985 to 2000. Applications from Zimbabweans increased by almost a third in the fourth quarter of 2002, but fell sharply in December, partly due to the introduction of visa regimes.

— In 2002, Zimbabwean applications were more than triple the 2001 level.

— Only in the last two years Zimbabwean nationals featured within the top 10 asylum seeking nationalities in the UK over the last 17 years (Information prior to 1985 us not available).

— A rapid increase in the number of Zimbabweans seeking asylum in the UK since the year 2000 indicates a rapid deterioration in the situation in Zimbabwe.

Table 5: Afghani Asylum Applications to the UK


	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	Total

Total number of asylum applications received	26,205	44,840	24,605	22,370	32,830	43,965	29,640	32,500	46,015	71,160	80,315	71,365	85,865	611,675
Asylum applications received from Afghan Nationals	175	210	270	315	325	580	675	1,085	2,395	3,975	5,555	9,000	7,380	32,130
Percentage Afghan of total applications received (rank)	0.7%	0.5%	1%	1.4%	1%	1.3%	2.3%	3.3%	5.2% (5)	5.6% (5)	7.0% (5)	12.9% (1)	8.6% (3)	5.3% N/A
Number approved	60	50	215	86/87	6/7	710	440	655	1,535	1,195	1,070	9,630	4,820	20,472
Granted refugee status	15	5	10	*	5	15	25	20	35	15	375	2,260	110	2,891
Granted ELR	45	45	205	85	*	695	415	635	1,500	1,180	695	7,370	4,710	17,581

Total number of refusals	5	5	10	25	10	40	50	75	65	90	1,515	2,530	3,285	7,705

Source: Refugee Council (2002) Asylum by numbers 1985-2000; Home Office (31 July 2002) Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2001; Home Office (March 2003) Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2002 United Kingdom

— "We have already ended routine grants of ELR status for Afghan asylum seekers. The situation in Afghanistan has changed considerably in recent months and we have agreed with the Afghan government that we will start enforced returns of failed asylum seekers in April" David Blunkett, March 2003

— In 2002, the number of applications received from Afghan Asylum Seekers fell significantly (-18%) compared with 2001.

— Afghanistan has featured within the top 10 asylum applicant-producing countries only since 1998, reflecting the serious deterioration of conditions in the country.

— Afghanistan is not placed in the top 10 asylum applicant-producing countries within the period beginning in 1985 and ending in 2000.

GENERAL NOTES ON THESE STATISTICS:

— Figures are rounded to the nearest five with * = 1+2.

— Rank is given only where the figure falls within the top 10.

— The number approved includes those granted refugee status and those offered alternative forms of protection.

— Figures exclude dependants.

— Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in that year.

— The figures given for the year of 2001 and 2002 are provisional.

— These figures are not updated to reflect cases won on appeal. Therefore the figures quoted above are indicative of initial decisions only.

— N/A implies that figures are unavailable.

— Asylum applicants may be refused any form of protection on the basis of one of three grounds which are:

— 1. Refusal after full consideration—This means that applicants have been refused since it is deemed they are not in need of protection

— 2. Refusal on safe third country grounds—When applications are refused on these grounds it means that applicants have arrived from countries considered by the Home Office to be safe. As such their application is automatically refused.

— 3. Refusal on the grounds of non-compliance—if asylum applicants fail to submit the Statement of Evidence Form, submit it late or do not complete it in English, they can be refused asylum on these grounds. They can also be refused on such grounds if they fail to attend their asylum interview or if they arrive late.

3. MOTIVATION OF APPLICANTS TO THE UK: POSSIBLE PULL FACTORS

3.1 Recent research into possible pull factors is summarised briefly below. Not only are there few studies, but their conclusions are necessarily based on only a small number of interviews. In spite of methodological rigour, the reasons given by interviewees for choosing the UK may be distorted for a range of reasons including distrust of interviewers, fear of authority, community loyalties and tensions, trauma of flight and lack of welcome in the UK.

3.2 The reasons for choosing the UK emerging most powerfully from these studies would benefit from more independent and exploratory research. They include prior presence of family or community members in the UK, the UK's reputation for tolerance and respect for human rights and the smugglers' choice of destination. Research commissioned by the Home Office has laid a useful foundation and the growing interest in research into the movements of population funded by ESRC will add considerably to the knowledge base. Examples of new research centres and initiatives include the University of Oxford's Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS); the Movement of Peoples in the Modern World programme shared between University College London and the University of Bristol Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship; and Sussex University's Migration Studies Programme. But until these new research programmes begin publishing their findings, it may not be possible to answer the Select Committee's question adequately.

3.3 There is a popular and political perception that access to benefits and permission to work in the UK have acted as pull factors. The research quoted below is divided on this. One study (Castles and Loughna) suggests that the freedom to work is a reason for coming to the UK; others (Koser and Pinkerton, and Robinson and Segrott) conclude that most asylum seekers reaching the UK have been in the hands of human smugglers, that few asylum seekers know their destination, and that generally human smugglers do not have up-to-date information on issues within the destination country. More research into the factors determining smugglers' choice of destination and the extent to which UK policies might affect its popularity as a destination for smugglers would be especially useful.

4. Recent research relevant to the question: "Why there has been a rise in asylum applications to the UK over the last 10 years?"

4.1 Castles, S, and Loughna, S. Forced Migration, Conflict and Development: Patterns of Mobility to the European Union, Causes and Policy Options. Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Commissioned by the Directorate General for Justice and Home Affairs of the European Commission (EC) through the Institute for Public Policy Research.

http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-3/conference2002-3.htm

4.1.1 This study has examined asylum applications to 14 EU countries by the top 10 countries of origin for push factors (conditions in country of origin), pull factors and intermediate factors (additional factors which are neither strictly pull nor push such as "social relationships or mechanisms that facilitated migration" eg human trafficking). It covers migration of all kinds but concentrates on refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons [28](IDPs). It contains useful evidence on the question asked by the Select Committee, but the authors emphasise that "this paper should be seen as merely a preliminary contribution to the debate" and that "the availability and quality of data in this area makes it extremely difficult to provide the empirical information and analysis needed for evidence-based policy."

4.1.2 The paper examines the relative importance of a set of push factors including repression of minorities or ethnic conflict, civil war, high numbers of displaced people relative to total population, poverty as reflected in low per capita income, low position on the Human development Index (HDI), low life expectancy, high population density, and high adult illiteracy rates. It concludes that the existence of conflict and repression is the main cause of forced migration to the EU countries and that "it is quite obvious that indicators of conflict are far more significant than indicators of development." It recognises elsewhere that asylum applicants may have multiple or mixed motives.

4.1.3 Statistics included in the study on the top 10 refugee hosting countries in the year 2000 have been calculated by various criteria (Source: UNHCR (2001) Global Report 2000: achievements and impact) and demonstrate clearly that "refugees are overwhelmingly concentrated in the poorest countries." The thrust of the study is to examine the potential for EU policies to mitigate the causes of migration, but it includes a brief examination of pull factors where asylum seekers and others have the power to influence their destinations.

4.1.4 Obvious pull factors common to all EU countries including peace, economic prosperity, welfare services, democracy and the rule of law do not throw much light on the Select Committee's specific question about the UK, but geographical proximity, traditional and colonial links, common language and the presence of members of their own community whether labour migrants or asylum seekers clearly do. The conclusion that "once a migratory flow is established it tends to continue even if policies change" seems likely to be both extremely important and to limit the power of government policy to restrict applications. Other cited studies reach similar conclusions.

4.1.5 It is important for policy makers to collect evidence on the role of Castles and Loughna's other "intermediate factors" including the migration industry and people smugglers. They conclude that attempts to control human smugglers will have little effect while causes for outward migration are so powerful, but it is beyond the scope of the research to weigh up their significance.

4.1.6 Not surprisingly there is little research into the processes by which human smugglers choose the UK as an asylum destination.

4.2 Gibney, MJ, and Hansen, R. Asylum Policy in the West: Past Trends, Future Possibilities. Paper for United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER) Conference on Poverty, International Migration and Asylum. Sept 2002. Refugee Studies Centre and Merton College, University of Oxford.

http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-3/conference2002-3.htm

4.2.1 This paper considers why numbers of asylum applications increased so sharply in the late 1980s and "skyrocketed" in the early 1990s across most of Europe and North America. Among cited "root causes" of increased asylum applications the authors include: "the escalation in refugee-producing events in the South, mostly related to decolonisation (the Algerian war of independence in the 1950s, unrest in Zaire and Rwanda in the 1960s, the Bangladeshi war of independence and the Vietnam war in the 1970s)"; the publicising of differences in "income, employment and lifestyle" through the spread of mass media; and the co-incidence of France, Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia and the UK all ending "policies that encouraged or tolerated labor migration from Southern Europe and former colonies/the third world."

4.2.2 The study puts the UK somewhere in the middle of what is a more general phenomenon. Rates of acceptance of asylum applications are relatively low across Europe—in 1999 they were 8.6% in Germany, 14% in France, 8.7% in the UK, 22% in the US and less than 50% even in Canada. Problems arise because of the "gradually expanding population of rejected asylum seekers remaining within Europe and North America"—at the extreme there were 400,000 unreturnable asylum seekers in Germany in 2000 (source cited as "confidential").

4.2.3 A "range of policy measures to prevent, deter, limit the stay of" asylum seekers have been introduced by receiving countries over the last 15 years. While "there is no doubt that some states operate harsher measures than others, the main elements of state policies (visa regimes, carrier sanctions, safe third country agreements, fast tracking schemes, readmission arrangements etc) are essentially very similar." The extent to which they can be judged effective depends on whose perspective is being considered. If it is a western government perspective, or more specifically a UK one, and if the policy objective is to create manageable and stable flows, the measures do not appear to have been effective. Instead, it appears that the increase of arrivals to the UK is part of a much bigger and more global problem.

4.3 Gilbert, A and Koser, K. The Dissemination to potential asylum seekers of information about UK immigration and asylum policy and practice. Final report to the Home Office. Feb 2003. Department of Geography, University College London. Unpublished.

4.3.1 This study is relevant because it "investigates the extent to which potential asylum seekers receive information about UK asylum and immigration procedures" and "how they evaluate and use that information in their decisions to claim asylum in the UK. Among other objectives it considers "the actual and potential impacts of both current information dissemination and positive policy interventions on the size and composition of asylum flows and on the success or otherwise of specific policy measures." No summary has been provided because it has not yet been published by the Home Office.

4.4 Koser, K and Pinkerton, C. The social networks of asylum seekers and the dissemination of information about countries of asylum. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. July 2002.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/socialnetwork.pdf

4.4.1 This study seeks to understand if and how potential asylum seekers choose a country of asylum by surveying existing published data and interviewing case workers from refugee community organisation and academics. It focuses on the patterns and processes of the dissemination of information about countries of asylum to potential asylum seekers, and in particular on the role of social networks.

4.4.2 The report defines social networks and looks at the existing knowledge about and current understanding of social networks, information dissemination and the migration decision-making process. It then examines how the complex relationship between these three factors applies to the specific circumstances of asylum seekers. It examines the way in which potential asylum seekers evaluate and trust information from social networks, the changing nature of social networks within Western Europe, particularly in relation to the roles of transit countries and smugglers/traffickers and their implications for the dissemination of information about countries of asylum and the decision-making process.

4.4.3 Social networks comprise "family and friends, community organisations and intermediaries such as labour recruiters and travel agents." They shift between both legal and illegal operations and source and destination countries, whilst also providing destination information and assisting with the majority of migration and integration strategies. Additional sources of information do exist (for example the internet), but they are often less trusted than social networks, which are seen to provide accurate, up-to-date and relevant information (the report acknowledges there are several reservations to these assumptions). A new geography of social networks is emerging where asylum seekers are increasingly arriving in countries of asylum with which they or their country of origin have no previous links, and where the roles of transit countries and smugglers are significantly increasing, to the extent that they are fulfilling some of the functions traditionally served by social networks.

4.4.4 The report considers the implications for policy making and identifies the need for further research into the analysis of the social networks of asylum seekers to include smugglers in any definition and to understand more fully the role of alternative sources and the mechanisms of information dissemination, beyond social networks. In order to conduct such research, difficult methodological challenges will need to be overcome.

Summary: www.icar.org.uk

4.5 Papadopoulos, I. And Gebrehiwot (ed). The EMBRACE UK Project: The Ethiopian migrants, their beliefs, refugeedom, adaptation, calamities, and experiences in the United Kingdom. The Ethiopian Community Centre in the UK (ECCUK) and Middlesex University, 2002.

4.5.1 Some refugee communities have investigated their community's reasons for coming to the UK. In this report 98 participants were asked why they left Ethiopia and how they escaped. The study is rich in detail about push factors, but throws little light on why the interviewees chose the UK.

4.5.2 There may have been more than one reason for flight including fear, following imprisonment of themselves or their family for political reasons, or for having known or suspected allegiances with people who had been imprisoned; to "avoid death or injury" "following the death of family members as a direct or indirect result of the politics of the country, or war; to avoid conscription "or were sent away in childhood for this reason"; "to have freedom of expression or will"; six had won scholarships to the UK and the political situation had changed while they were in the UK; six "because there were few occupational opportunities in Ethiopia"; and some were sent as children "because their parents wanted to protect them from death and disease and to have better health care and life chances".

4.5.3 The reasons for leaving cited, and the way in which they are described, illustrate the difficulties of drawing strict distinctions between the threat of persecution and other life threatening aspects of the political situation in Ethiopia in the 1970s and 1980s.

Table 7 shows Ethiopian asylum applications to the UK since 1989.

Table 7: Ethiopian asylum applications to the UK


	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	Total[29]

Total number of asylum applications received	26,205	44,840	24,605	22,370	32,830	43,965	29,640	32,500	46,015	71,160	80,315	71,365	85,865	611,675
Asylum applications received from Ethiopian Nationals	2,340	1685	680	615	730	585	205	145	345	455	415	610	725	9,535
Percentage Ethiopian of total applications received (rank[30])	10% (3)	4% (9)	3% (10)	3%	2%	1%	1%	—	1%	1%	1%	1%	1%	2%
Number approved[31]	130	135	2,220	1,595	50	40	65	55	45	25	120	320	215	5,015
Granted refugee status	110	65	10	20	5	5	10	20	35	20	40	85	45	470
Granted ELR	20	70	2,210	1,575	45	35	55	35	10	5	80	235	170	4,545

Total number of refusal	30	30	145	65	325	475	260	185	60	35	355	835	490	3,290

GENERAL NOTES ON THESE STATISTICS

— Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

— Rank is included only where the figure falls within the top 10.

— Number approved refers to those granted refugee status or alternative forms of protection

— Figures exclude dependants.

— Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in that year.

— Information is of initial determination decisions excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

— The figures given for the year of 2001 and 2002 are provisional.

— N/A implies that figures are unavailable.

4.6 Robinson, V, and Segrott, J. Home Office Research Study 243: Understanding the decision-making of asylum seekers. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. July 2002.

4.6.1 This study aims to understand the reasons behind asylum seekers' choice of the UK in preference to other possible destinations and how individual biographies affect the decision making process, both "explicitly and at the level of practical consciousness". It examines the role of intermediary agents, of images of the UK, of families and friends already living in the UK, and of the asylum seeker's prior knowledge of the UK. It assesses how much asylum seekers knew about the support they would receive from the state in terms of welfare benefits, housing and healthcare and of opportunities to work and study.

4.6.2 The research used 65 in-depth interviews to explore the "practical consciousness" of asylum seekers' decision-making process in order to understand its full complexity and purposive sampling using established criteria ensured a variety of respondents. The study concluded that in those cases where asylum seekers were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK: "whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK, including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it. Agents often played a key role in directing migration towards or away from particular countries. In some cases, the asylum seekers had the knowledge and resources to ensure they achieved their preferred destination; in extreme cases they were sent to countries without being told their destination. The presence of family and friends in the UK created strong incentives to claim asylum in this country, in some cases, acting as the primary reason for choosing the UK but most of the respondents knew very little about UK asylum policy before their arrival.

4.6.3 Expectations about welfare benefits and housing did not play a major role in the decision to seek asylum in the UK. Knowledge about the assistance received was limited and general rather than particular; and about employment opportunities and rights was generally low. Finding work was an important issue for the respondents once they had reached a place of safety, come to terms with what had happened to them, and adjusted to life in a new country. Education was a stronger influence on the decision to seek asylum in the UK than employment.

Summary: www.icar.org.uk

4.7 Theilmann, E.R. Does Policy Matter? On governments' attempts to regulate asylum flows. Paper for United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER) Conference on Poverty, International Migration and Asylum. Sept 2002. Department of Government, London School of Economics.

http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-3/conference2002-3.htm

4.7.1 This study considers why asylum applications, and therefore "asylum burdens", fall so unevenly among OECD states, in spite of their attempts to co-operate on asylum matters. It describes how states' policies are based on a series of assumptions which may be invalid but at least needs to be questioned: that asylum seekers are well-informed about the relative benefits to them of different destination countries- either through "personal network or their traffickers"; "that they are expected to choose to apply to those countries which have the most attractive asylum policy package, in terms of access, determination and integration/welfare measures"; and that in this way the more attractive destinations will be seen as a "soft touch" and attract a disproportionately large number of applications.

4.7.2 The author believes that studies of patterns of asylum application often focus on individual countries to the detriment of reaching general conclusions which are comparative. He uses migration theory literature to identify "push" and "pull" factors: economic, historic, political, geographic and policy-related, and identifies three policy instruments open to countries wishing not be seen as a "soft touch" or comparatively attractive destination: "access control, the determination process and migrant integration policy".

4.7.3 The study tests the "pull" factor hypotheses using regression analysis of UNHCR and OECD aggregated data for 20 OECD countries for the period 1985-99, analyses the deterrence effect of three potentially discouraging policies—the existence of a dispersal scheme, a non-cash based system of support, and prohibition of employment during the application process—and measures the relative "burden" on individual countries in relation to geographical size, GDP etc.

4.7.4 The statistical results show that for most countries there were "significant variations in the relative burdens over time" and many of the bigger countries—including the UK—"attracted far fewer than average applications relative to population size", and that for some, including the UK, relative applications had increased significantly recently.

4.7.5 Other potentially relevant conclusions included: high unemployment figures are significantly negatively related to relative numbers of asylum applications, historical ties and established networks are "strongly and positively correlated" with the relative numbers of applicants (and to the UK specifically) ; and strongly and positively correlated with positive perceptions of a country's liberalism; and positively but not so strongly with shorter travel distances from the country of origin.

4.7.6 The deterrence index results call into question the assumption that asylum seekers have significant knowledge about destination countries "let alone comparative knowledge of different potential countries of destination"; and that "individual deterrence measures will be overshadowed by other pull factors, especially in the short and medium term". For example human smugglers and traffickers will be reluctant to pull out of well-established routes and a destination country's liberal reputation will have been built up over time and "is unlikely to be called into question overnight". The paper concludes that neither those fleeing from persecution nor those in search of a better life "are significantly deterred by restrictive measures of the kind introduced across Europe in recent years, that unilateral deterrent measures will only affect applications so long as they remain unilateral and that: "Historical ties and migrant networks, economic performance and asylum seekers' perceptions about the relative "liberalness" of a particular country of destination, come out as much stronger explanatory factors for the evolution of relative asylum burdens.

5. USEFUL INFORMATION, DATA AND RESEARCH—ALPHABETICAL BY SOURCE

5.1 Statistics on asylum applications to the UK:

Council of Europe:

Current Trends in International Migration in Europe.

Home Office:

Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom.

UNHCR Geneva:

Global Report: Achievement and Impact.

Trends in Annual Migration to Industrialised Countries

Asylum Trends in Industrialised Countries.

Trends in Asylum Migration to Industrialised Countries 1990-2001

http://www.ch/statist/99profiles/

US Committee on Refugees

Annual World Refugee Survey.

http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/

5.2 Analysis of asylum statistics

Analysis of Home Office Asylum statistics, UNHCR figures and of the UK position compared with the rest of Europe and/or the EU appears in the following publications and studies:

Trends in Asylum Migration to Industrialised Countries: 1990-2001.

http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-3/conference2002-3.htm

Quarterly and Annual Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom contain introduction and commentary

— ICAR Statistical Snapshot Series

Trends in International Migration: Annual report 2001.

Asylum by numbers 1985-2000: Analysis of available asylum data from 1985 to 2000.

— UNHCR—all published statistics contain some introduction, commentary and analysis

The State of the World's refugees: Fifty years of Humanitarian Action.

— Unpublished PhD theses

US Committee for Refugees (USCR) World Refugee Survey 2001.

5.3 Additional Bibliography—not included in the summary of research above

Gibney, MJ. (2000). Outside the Protection of the Law: The situation of irregular migrants in Europe. Edited by Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford.

UNHCR (2000). Reconciling Migrant Control and Refugee Protection in the European Union: A UNHCR perspective. Discussion paper, UNHCR. Geneva

Salt, J and Stein, J (1997) Migration as a business: the case of trafficking. International Migration, 35.

Robinson, V (2002) Summary of current research on the decision-making of asylum seekers. Home Office (ed)

24 March 2003

28 IDPs are defined as those forced to flee their homes, but who have not crossed an international border. Back

29 Since most of the figures of interest were not available prior to 1992, the figures given in the total column will be slightly inaccurate. However, since the reason why these figures are not available is because the numbers are small, the accuracy of the figures in the total column should not be significantly effected. Back

30 Rank is only given in places where the number of asylum applications received from Zimbabweans is within the top 10 of the total number of applications received. Back

31 The numbers approved included those who have been granted refugee status, ELR and ILR. Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) is an alternative form of protection which may be granted when an asylum seeker has failed to advance a successful asylum claim but is able to advance other reasons why they should not be removed. ELR may be granted for up to four years and a person who has completed four years on exceptional leave may apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Those who have been granted ELR and ILR have many of the same rights and entitlements as those who have been granted refugee status, such as the same employment rights and access to benefits and other state support. Back



© Parliamentary copyright 2004	Prepared 26 January 2004