Conclusions and recommendations
1. 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 (Paragraph
5)
Access to financial support and accommodation
2. People
who are attempting to claim asylum and support encounter significant
practical difficulties because of the limited accessibility of
Asylum Screening Units. These difficulties may discourage people
from engaging in the asylum process and cause severe hardship
for claimants with no resources. We recommend that the Government
improves facilities for claiming asylum and provides locations
for claiming asylum and support throughout the UK. (Paragraph
81)
3. We
have heard countless examples of Home Office inefficiencies in
processing support claims, with severe consequences for desperate,
vulnerable people who have no other means to support themselves.
There is an urgent need to improve the operational performance
of the Home Office where decisions are being made about support
for asylum seekers. The institutional failure to address operational
inefficiencies and to protect asylum seekers from destitution
amounts in many cases to a failure to protect them from inhuman
and degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR. (Paragraph 84)
4. We
welcome the development of the New Asylum Model (NAM) which has
the potential to improve the timeliness of decision making and
the quality of support to asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers.
However, we are concerned that the Home Office has yet to ensure
that NAM caseworkers receive adequate training about asylum seekers'
entitlement to support. We recommend that the capacity of NAM
is closely monitored whilst it is assuming responsibility for
support provision. We also recommend that the Home Office reviews
arrangements for the provision of advice and information to asylum
seekers and their representatives, both during the applicant's
asylum claim and during the transition to mainstream support after
asylum is granted. (Paragraph 87)
5. The
continued use of the section 55 provision to deny support in subsistence-only
cases leaves many asylum seekers reliant on ad hoc charitable
support and with no regular means of providing for their basic
daily necessities. We believe that this treatment does not comply
with the House of Lords Limbuela judgment, and is in clear breach
of Article 3 ECHR. We recommend that section 55 be repealed. (Paragraph
92)
6. The
section 9 pilot has caused considerable hardship and does not
appear to have encouraged more refused asylum seeking families
to leave the UK. We urge the Government to publish the results
of the pilot without further delay. We believe that using both
the threats and the actuality of destitution and family separation
is incompatible with the principles of common humanity and with
international human rights law and that it has no place in a humane
society. We recommend that section 9 be repealed at the earliest
opportunity. (Paragraph 97)
7. The
absence of provision for representation before the Asylum Support
Adjudicators may lead to a breach of an asylum seeker's right
to a fair hearing, particularly where an appellant speaks no English,
has recently arrived in the UK, lives far from Croydon and/or
has physical or mental health needs. Where an appeal fails, and
as a result of the unavailability of legal representation an asylum
seeker is left destitute, the result may also be a violation of
Article 3 ECHR. We recommend that the Government should make legal
aid funding available for representation before the Asylum Support
Adjudicators. Where needed, assistance with accommodation as well
as travel costs involved in attending an appeal should also be
provided. We heard evidence that suggested in some cases this
assistance was not being given. In our view it is a priority that
appellants receive accommodation and subsistence for the hearing.
(Paragraph 99)
8. We
are concerned that the shortage of competent immigration advice
and representation may indirectly result in destitution. (Paragraph
101)
9. We
consider that in some cases the quality and terms of accommodation
provision under section 95 of the 1999 Act interferes with the
rights of asylum seekers and their children to respect for family
and home life under Article 8 ECHR, and the right to adequate
housing under Article 11 ICESCR. (Paragraph 104)
10. We
consider the section 4 voucher scheme to be inhumane and inefficient.
It stigmatises refused asylum seekers and does not adequately
provide for basic living needs. There is no evidence that the
voucher system encourages refused asylum seekers to leave the
UK. We believe that the section 4 voucher scheme discriminates
on the grounds of nationality, and could constitute a breach of
Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 ECHR and of Articles
3 and 8 themselves. There are particular responsibilities towards
women, especially relating to pregnancy and post natal treatment.
In many cases these responsibilities are not being met and there
is an immediate need to provide financial support for essential
items not covered by the vouchers, including clothing, baby items,
telephone costs and travel. We recommend that the Government extends
section 95 support to section 4 applicants and abandons the voucher
system. (Paragraph 110)
11. Inadequate
housing could give rise to a breach of a family's right to respect
for family and home life under Article 8 ECHR, especially where
a child is living there. We welcome the Home Office's assurance
that it intends to standardise the accommodation contracts to
make all section 4 accommodation of the same standard as section
95 accommodation by the end of 2007. We recommend that the Home
Office puts in place measures to ensure that where accommodation
is of an inadequate standard, urgent repairs are carried out or
alternative accommodation is provided. (Paragraph 112)
12.
We are concerned that this may result in discriminatory treatment
for asylum seekers with care needs in Scotland, in breach of Articles
8 and 14 ECHR. There is no clear guidance reflecting recent court
decisions regarding local authority responsibilities towards asylum
seekers with care needs. We recommend that the Government issue
new guidance setting out when local authorities have a duty to
provide community care help to asylum seekers and refused asylum
seekers and that it implements procedures to ensure that local
authorities comply with this duty. (Paragraph 115)
13. We
consider that by refusing permission for most asylum seekers to
work and operating a system of support which results in widespread
destitution, the treatment of asylum seekers in a number of cases
reaches the Article 3 ECHR threshold of inhuman and degrading
treatment. This applies at all stages of the asylum claim process:
when an individual is attempting to claim asylum, during the period
of consideration of their claim and during the period after their
claim is refused if they are unable to return to their country
of origin. Many witnesses have told us that they are convinced
that destitution is a deliberate tool in the operation of immigration
policy. We have been persuaded by the evidence that the Government
has indeed been practising a deliberate policy of destitution
of this highly vulnerable group. We believe that the deliberate
use of inhumane treatment is unacceptable. We have seen instances
in all cases where the Government's treatment of asylum seekers
and refused asylum seekers falls below the requirements of the
common law of humanity and of international human rights law.
(Paragraph 120)
14. The
policy of enforced destitution must cease. The system of asylum
seeker support is a confusing mess. We have seen no justification
for providing varying standards of support and recommend the introduction
of a coherent, unified, simplified and accessible system of support
for asylum seekers, from arrival until voluntary departure or
compulsory removal from the UK. (Paragraph 121)
15. We
recommend that the Immigration Rules be amended so that asylum
seekers may apply for permission to work when their asylum appeal
is outstanding for 12 months or more and the delay is due to factors
outside their control. We recommend that where there is evidence
that an asylum seeker will not be able to leave the UK for 12
months or more, he or she should be granted limited leave for
a 12 month period with permission to work attached. (Paragraph
122)
Provision of healthcare
16. We
note that the Government has not produced any evidence to demonstrate
the extent of what it describes as "health tourism"
in the UK. (Paragraph 129)
17. We
have heard that the 2004 Charging Regulations have caused confusion
about entitlement, that interpretation of them appears to be inconsistent
and that in some cases people who are entitled to free treatment
have been charged in error. The threat of incurring high charges
has resulted in some people with life-threatening illnesses or
disturbing mental health conditions being denied, or failing to
seek, treatment. We have heard of many extremely shocking examples.
(Paragraph 134)
18. The
arrangements for levying charges on pregnant and nursing mothers
lead in many cases to the denial of antenatal care to vulnerable
women. This is inconsistent with the principles of common humanity
and with the UK's obligations under ECHR Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR.
We recommend that the Government suspend all charges for antenatal,
maternity and peri-natal care. We recommend that all maternity
care should be free to those who have claimed asylum, including
those whose claim has failed, until voluntary departure or removal
from the UK. (Paragraph 143)
19. We
accept that there is no universal worldwide access to free medical
treatment, but recommend that on the basis of common humanity,
and in support of its wider international goal of halting the
spread of HIV/AIDS, the Government should provide free HIV/AIDS
treatment for refused asylum seekers for as long as they remain
in the UK. Absence of treatment for serious infectious diseases
raises wider public health risks. The Government should not deport
a person in circumstances where that person is in the final stages
of a terminal illness and would not have access to medical care
to prevent acute suffering while he is dying. (Paragraph 152)
20. We
have seen evidence that the current arrangements for access to
GPs result in the denial of necessary primary healthcare for many
refused asylum seekers and their children. We believe that in
many cases this is in breach of the ECHR rights to be free from
inhuman or degrading treatment, to respect for private life and
to enjoy Convention rights without unjustified discrimination,
and also in some cases to the right to life. Moreover, consequent
increased reliance on A&E services as a substitute is more
expensive, increases A&E pressures and flies in the face of
the general NHS policy of moving care away from A&E and hospitals
and into primary care, closer to the patient. We recommend that
primary healthcare be provided free to those who have claimed
asylum, including those whose claim has been refused, pending
their voluntary return or removal. We recommend that the guidance
to GPs on registering new patients be clarified to remove the
existing contradictions. (Paragraph 158)
21. We
note the BMA research on the vulnerability and ill-health of refugee
children. We recommend that the Department of Health establish
guidelines on health services for unaccompanied asylum seeking
children and for children in families of asylum seekers, including
refused asylum seekers, so as to comply with its obligations under
the CRC. (Paragraph 159)
22. We
note that no race equality impact assessment was carried out before
introducing the 2004 charging regulations or with regard to the
current discretionary arrangements for GP registration. We agree
with the JCWI and the CRE that the current arrangements and proposals
for charging refused asylum seekers for healthcare give rise to
a risk of race discrimination. (Paragraph 163)
23. The
Health Minister told us that that no information had been collected
centrally about the costs and benefits of charging refused asylum
seekers for secondary healthcare. We are concerned and very surprised
that no steps are being taken to monitor the cost or effect of
the 2004 charging regulations in relation to the provision of
secondary healthcare. (Paragraph 166)
24. Under
the ECHR, discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights
on grounds of nationality requires particularly weighty justification.
The restrictions on access to free healthcare for refused asylum
seekers who are unable to leave the UK are examples of nationality
discrimination which require justification. No evidence has been
provided to us to justify the charging policy, whether on the
grounds of costs saving or of encouraging refused asylum seekers
to leave the UK. We recommend that free primary and secondary
healthcare be provided for all those who have made a claim for
asylum or under the ECHR whilst they are in the UK, in order to
comply with the laws of common humanity and the UK's international
human rights obligations, and to protect the health of the nation.
Whilst charges are still in place, we consider that it is inappropriate
for health providers to be responsible both for (i) deciding who
is or is not entitled to free care and (ii) recovering costs from
patients. We recommend that a separate central agency be established
to collect payments. (Paragraph 170)
25. The
timetable for reviewing the regulations on charging for healthcare
is unsatisfactory and has exacerbated the confusion around entitlement.
The consultation on primary care was closed in 2004 but no analysis
has been published. We recommend that the Government collect evidence
of the impact of the 2004 Charging Regulations on patients, NHS
costs and NHS staff, and that it carry out a race equality impact
assessment and a public health impact assessment of these Regulations
using data obtained to inform future policy decisions. (Paragraph
171)
Treatment of children
26. As
we have made clear in our previous Reports, we consider the Government's
concerns in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
to be unfounded. Of the 192 signatories to the CRC, only three
have entered declarations relating to the treatment of non-nationals
and only the UK has entered a general reservation to the application
of the Convention to children who are subject to immigration control.
We do not accept that the CRC undermines effective immigration
controls. Our principal concern is that the practical impact of
the reservation goes far beyond the determination of immigration
status, and leaves children seeking asylum with a lower level
of protection in relation to a range of rights which are unrelated
to their immigration status. The evidence we have received testifies
to the unequal protection of the rights of asylum seeking children
under domestic law and practice (Paragraph 180)
27. We
reiterate our previous recommendation that the Government's reservation
to the CRC should be withdrawn. It is not needed to protect the
public interest and undermines the international reputation of
the country. Even if, as the Minister states (which we do not
accept), the removal of the Reservation would be nothing more
than a "gesture", we consider that this is important
in expressing the value given to protecting the rights of separated
asylum seeking children (Paragraph 181)
28. We
also recommend that the Government consider how section 11 of
the Children Act could be extended to include authorities providing
support for asylum seekers, the Immigration Service and the IRCs
(Paragraph 182)
29. We
are concerned about the detrimental consequences of providing
inadequate and inappropriate support and accommodation to separated
asylum seeking children. These children, who come to the UK, often
traumatised, from some of the most troubled regions of the world,
are particularly vulnerable. All local authorities should follow
the guidance set out in LAC13 (2003) and provide separated children
with support under section 20 of the Children Act. Children should
not be "de-accommodated" before they turn 18 (Paragraph
190)
30. We
recognise that the difficulties local authorities face in providing
an appropriate package of accommodation and support to separated
asylum seeking children are compounded by the lack of additional
resources available to social service departments, and by a broader
political and policy context which pushes the needs of separated
children down the already long list of priorities facing local
authorities in providing children's services. Local authorities
must be provided with sufficient funds to deliver an appropriate
package of support and care, including leaving care costs (Paragraph
191)
31. We
are concerned that there is currently no statutory oversight for
ensuring that separated children are able to access the services
and support to which they are entitled, and for ensuring that
the wide range of bodies in contact with a child act in his or
her best interests. This is despite the requirement of Article
19 of the EU Reception Directive, that separated children should
be provided with a guardian. We recommend that a formal system
of guardianship should be established for separated children subject
to immigration control, including separated asylum seeking children.
The guardian would have a statutory role and would be appointed
by a statutory body to safeguard the best interests of the child
and provide a link between all those providing services and support.
The guardian should be expected to intervene if public bodies
act in contravention of their legal duties towards a child (Paragraph
193)
32. We
recommend that the Government's proposals to reform the arrangements
for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children should be
carefully scrutinised against the benchmark of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child to ensure that this group are not excluded
from the care, consideration and protection to which all children
and young people are entitled (Paragraph 196)
33. We
are concerned by the lack of recognition given by the Government
to the risks of having children whose age is disputed in the adult
system. We are not convinced that the Home Office is ensuring
that the "benefit of the doubt" is given to separated
asylum seeking children or that local authorities receive appropriate
training and support to enable them to undertake an integrated
assessment process. We are also concerned that age disputed children
continue to be detained as adults despite Government policy which
says that this should not happen; and legal actions, in which
the Home Office has conceded that this approach is not appropriate.
(Paragraph 203)
34.
We recommend that where an asylum seeker's age is disputed even
where the benefit of the doubt has been given, he or she should
be provided with accommodation by the appropriate social service
department in order for an integrated age assessment to be undertaken,
considering all relevant factors. X-rays and other medical assessment
methods should not be relied upon, given the margin of error.
The process for dealing with age disputes should be reviewed,
particularly in light of the evidence and recommendations arising
from the research currently being undertaken by ILPA and due to
be published shortly, with a view to ensuring that no age disputed
asylum seeker is detained or removed unless and until an integrated
age assessment has been undertaken. (Paragraph 204)
Detention and removal
35. We
recommend that all IRC staff, including those of private contractors,
are given training in refugee and human rights. (Paragraph 216)
36. We
are concerned that the decision to detain an asylum seeker at
the beginning of the process simply in order to consider his or
her application may be arbitrary because it is based on assumptions
about the safety or otherwise of the country from which the asylum
seeker has come. It is self-evident that some asylum seekers -
most obviously torture victims and those who have been sexually
abused - are unlikely to reveal the full extent of experiences
to the authorities in such a short-time period, and that this
problem will be exacerbated where they are not able to access
legal advice and representation, and the support of organisations
able to help them come to terms with their experiences. (Paragraph
226)
37. We
are also concerned that although fast track detention for anything
more than a short, tightly controlled period of time is unlawful,
some asylum seekers find themselves detained at the beginning
of the asylum process for periods in excess of this. The act of
claiming asylum is not a criminal offence and should not be treated
as such. If asylum seekers are detained at the beginning of the
asylum process, then the period of detention should be limited
to a maximum of seven days. (Paragraph 227)
38. We
recommend that asylum seekers who are detained as part of the
fast track and super fast track processes should be provided with
free, on-site legal advice - for example, on the model previously
provided by the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory
Service at Oakington - to ensure that victims of torture and other
forms of abuse are identified and taken out of the process; and
that claims for asylum are properly considered. (Paragraph 228)
39. We
are deeply concerned by the evidence we have heard about the current
gap between policy and practice in relation to the detention of
vulnerable adults. The Home Office acknowledges that victims of
torture, pregnant women and those with serious physical and mental
health conditions should not be detained and yet it continues
to happen in practice. This is clearly a violation of the UK's
human rights obligations towards those individuals. We welcome
the acknowledgement by the Home Office that this is an issue which
needs to be addressed and the news that some steps are being put
into place to improve current practice. (Paragraph 236)
40. We
recommend that the Home Office continues to take appropriate steps
to ensure that its own policy guidance is followed and that it
consults on a regular basis with BID and the Association of Visitors
to Detainees (AVID), to ensure that its own procedures are being
followed. Evidence that vulnerable adults continue to be detained
should be treated seriously and acted upon. (Paragraph 237)
41. We
are concerned that the current process of detention does not consider
the welfare of the child, meaning that children and their needs
are invisible throughout the process - at the point a decision
to detain is made; at the point of arrest and detention; whilst
in detention; and during the removal process. We are particularly
concerned that the detention of children can - and sometimes does
- continue for lengthy periods with no automatic review of the
decision. Where the case is reviewed (for example by an immigration
judge or by the Minister after 28 days), assessments of the welfare
of the child who is detained are not taken into account. It is
difficult to understand what the purpose of welfare assessments
are if they are not taken into account by Immigration Service
staff and immigration judges. (Paragraph 258)
42. The
detention of children for the purpose of immigration control is
incompatible with children's right to liberty and is in breach
of UK's international human right's obligations. Any decision
to detain a child, at whatever stage of the asylum process must
be compliant with international standards and subject to judicial
oversight. We believe that the detention of asylum seeking children
constitutes a breach of the UK's human rights obligations. Asylum
seeking children should not be detained. This includes detention
as part of fast track or accelerated procedures for asylum determination.
Alternatives should be developed for ensuring compliance with
immigration controls where this is considered necessary. (Paragraph
259)
43. For
the fast track process, the Home Office has recognised the risks
of wrongly detaining age-disputed children as adults and has revised
its policy to clarify that age-disputed children must not be detained
as adults in the fast track. There remains a risk that age-disputed
children are still detained as adults in other circumstances,
such as prior to removal. We recommend that the Home Office policy
is further revised, so as to ensure that under no circumstances
are age-disputed children detained as adults. (Paragraph 260)
44. In
the absence of an end to the detention of children, minimum safeguards
must be put in place to ensure that the human rights of children
and their families are protected as far as possible. Automatic
bail hearings should be provided for families with children after
a seven day period of detention. The assessment of a social worker
must be taken into account at this stage and in any subsequent
reviews of the decision to detain. (Paragraph 261)
45. We
are concerned that in the drive to increase the number of asylum
seekers who are removed at the end of the asylum process and to
achieve the 'Tipping the Balance' target which the Government
has set itself, insufficient care is being paid before an asylum
seeker is detained, as to whether or not he or she can actually
be removed. (Paragraph 268)
46. We
believe that current policies for the detention of asylum seekers
potentially lead to human rights breaches under the ECHR, in particular
the right to liberty under Article 5. Asylum seekers should only
be detained at the end of the process if their application has
been fully and properly considered and where there are travel
and other documents in place to ensure that the removal happens
swiftly and detention does not become prolonged. (Paragraph 269)
47. We
do not believe that it is right that the decision to detain an
asylum seeker - which goes to the heart of that person's liberty
- should be entirely administrative. We recommend that there should
be an automatic, prompt, independent judicial review of the decision
to detain in all cases after seven days. (Paragraph 274)
48. We
are concerned that there is currently no maximum time limit for
which asylum seekers can be detained and that this can - and does
- lead to protracted periods of detention whilst various steps
are taken to secure removal. In the absence of a systematic process
for reviewing the decision to detain there is a significant risk
that a period of detention which IND initially intended to last
for a few days can turn into weeks, months and even years. This
has a negative impact on asylum seekers and their families. (Paragraph
275)
49. We
recommend that where detention is considered unavoidable to facilitate
the removal of asylum seekers who are at the end of the process,
subject to judicial oversight the maximum period of detention
should be 28 days. In our view this is sufficient time in which
to make arrangements for return, especially if appropriate steps
are taken prior to detention to secure travel documents. For families
with children, the maximum length of detention should be 7 days.
(Paragraph 276)
50. Free
on-site legal advice should be provided to all detained asylum
seekers to ensure that they are able to access a bail hearing
and that all the information needed to secure a fair and just
outcome is available to the immigration judge. We recommend that
family cases should be prioritised, with social work reports and
medical reports made available as a matter of course to judges
for bail hearings. (Paragraph 291)
51. We
are not satisfied that the quality of healthcare currently provided
to asylum seekers in detention is fully compliant with international
human rights obligations, in particular the rights to freedom
from inhuman and degrading treatment and to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. We
are particularly concerned about gaps in care for people with
HIV and with mental health problems. It is not clear that procedures
for identifying and supporting torture victims work in practice.
We recommend that the Department of Health establish a policy
for supervising the health services that are available in detention
centres, and that the standard of services should be monitored.
Female GPs and other medical practitioners should be available
in detention centres where women are held. (Paragraph 305)
52. We
are concerned about the lack of information provided to detained
asylum seekers about the reasons for their detention and the progress
of their case. This exacerbates the stress and anxiety which is
inevitably associated with being detained and with uncertainty
about what the future holds. Some of the evidence we have received
suggests that this problem is likely to get worse with the removal
of case workers from IRCs and their replacement with administrative
staff. All asylum seekers should be provided with written information
about the reasons for their detention. Movements around the detention
estate should be minimised. (Paragraph 310)
53. This
policy gives the impression of requiring people to attend interviews
under false pretences and can create a perverse incentive not
to comply with reporting requirements for fear of immediate detention.
(Paragraph 318)
54. We
welcome the Home Office's announcement that IND is intending to
review the way in which family removals are conducted but are
disappointed that over a year later the review is still in progress
and no changes have yet been proposed or made. We find the attitude
of the Home Office towards families facing removal troubling.
The Government seems at a loss to understand why families at the
end of the asylum process do not simply take the money made available
to them to return 'voluntarily' to their country of origin. And
yet it seems clear that for the families concerned - many of whom
have been effectively made destitute and face losing their children
into the care system - the fears of return are very real. There
is also evidence that many families are not aware that their case
has come to an end until they are arrested early in the morning
at their home address, and that in some cases families are detained
before their case has come to an end, for example, if a fresh
claim has been submitted or there is an outstanding appeal hearing.
(Paragraph 328)
55. We
are concerned about the failure of the Home Office to develop
alternatives to detention beyond the relatively limited use of
voluntary check-in arrangements which are unlikely to be successful
without a properly functioning casework model which can support
asylum seekers throughout the process and make them aware of the
different options available to them at different stages. (Paragraph
329)
56. The
detention of asylum seekers - particularly asylum seeking families
- should be undertaken with dignity and humanity. A pastoral visit
should be undertaken in all cases to ensure that the family's
circumstances are fully known to the officers who will be undertaking
the removal itself. People should have time to collect their belongings,
and to sit exams, and journeys should be as comfortable as possible.
(Paragraph 330)
57. We
understand that removal is a difficult, sometimes very difficult,
process, particularly where asylum seekers do not, for a wide
variety of reasons, wish to return to their country of origin.
We remain concerned by the many reports of excessive use of force
and, in many cases, the lack access to possessions. (Paragraph
336)
58. HMIP
has recommended that proper procedures should be established to
prepare detainees, particularly asylum seekers, for removal. Such
procedures are necessary to ensure that removals can be conducted
properly and with dignity. (Paragraph 337)
59.
We are concerned that the drive to meet performance targets may
be leading to unnecessary or poorly planned removals. (Paragraph
338)
Treatment by the media
60. We
are concerned about the negative impact of hostile reporting and
in particular the effects that it can have on individual asylum
seekers and the potential it has to influence the decision making
of officials and Government policy. We are also concerned about
the possibility of a link between hostile reporting by the media
and physical attacks on asylum seekers. (Paragraph 349)
61. We
therefore recommend that the PCC should reconsider its position
with a view to providing practical guidance on how the profession
of journalism should comply with its duties and responsibilities
in reporting matters of legitimate public interest and concern.
We emphasise that such guidance must not unduly restrict freedom
of speech or freedom of the press any more than similar guidance
does in the USA. (Paragraph 366)
62. We
recommend that Ministers recognise their responsibility to use
measured language so as not to give ammunition to those who seek
to build up resentment against asylum seekers, nor to give the
media the excuse to write inflammatory or misleading articles.
(Paragraph 367)
63. We
were pleased to learn about the positive impact of projects which
aim to encourage more considered reporting of asylum seeker issues,
and provide a voice for asylum seekers. We are encouraged to hear
that newspaper editors would be prepared to publish more such
stories, and suggest their willingness to do so should be supported
by those working with asylum seekers, submitting positive stories
for reporting by them. We support the recent recommendation from
the Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees that the Home
Office should encourage newspapers to act more responsibly, and
we recommend that the Home Office lend its support to the networks
and award schemes working in this area. (Paragraph 371)
| 
