My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Stroud for bringing Amendment 30. The issue has been much debated and it hinges on two issues really: the integrity of our immigration system and pull factors. I want to correct a figure that has been mooted a couple of times this evening: there are actually 81,000 people awaiting an initial decision, not 125,000, but it is a large number nevertheless.
A more relaxed asylum seeker right to work policy creates a back door into our labour market. We have just set up a world-leading economic migration scheme, which provides ample opportunity for people of varying skill and educational levels to apply to come and work in the UK. In fact, this scheme was a core manifesto commitment; it was not about Brexit. However, we cannot afford to turn around and offer people the opportunity to undercut it through simply lodging an asylum claim. Our policy is a constituent part of a whole; it does not operate in isolation. As my noble
friend Lady Stowell said, someone who comes to the UK and is found working illegally can claim asylum as a way to prevent removal and then get the right to work. That does not seem logical to me.
I will repeat that, where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route: either the points-based immigration system or our various family reunion routes. We know that people want to work in the UK. Why would they not? We have a strong economy and labour market. That is why we cannot discount the risk of even more channel crossings if we relaxed our asylum seeker right-to-work policy. This issue has been debated at length in the past. However, I want to be clear that the motivations for fleeing one’s country of origin—of which noble Lords are well aware—and the motivations for moving from one safe country to another are not the same.
According to a 2009 article by Norwegian academics Jan-Paul Brekke and Monica Aarset, there is a hierarchy of considerations which migrants make when choosing a particular country. The first is, of course, that it is safe. The second—more important even than family networks—is the existence of future opportunities, which include:
“the welfare state, education, the jobs market and good conditions for bringing up children.”
These are things which are shared by all northern European countries, including France. This importance of future opportunities is clear through similar academic literature on secondary movements, in which economic considerations, including the ability to work, are consistently cited as a primary factor in choices about moving from one safe country to another. I am afraid that noble Lords continue to conflate reasons for leaving countries of origin with reasons for making those secondary movements, which is misleading and unhelpful for the purposes of this debate.
Noble Lords will be aware that the French cite the ability to work as a pull for those making channel crossings. Whether that is about the availability of work in the shadow economy or not is actually quite irrelevant. The point that we are being told by senior French Ministers is that these people are motivated to move from one safe country to another because they want to work. This was reiterated in a sobering BBC World Service investigation into the tragedy in the channel last November. Through deep research into the lives and families of the victims, the journalists ultimately found that they were all motivated to come to the UK from France for economic reasons. The solution here is to decide cases more quickly, and that is what we are doing through the wider new plan for immigration. I hope that this has been a good explainer of the background.
My noble friend Lady Stroud said that 71% of people think that the right to work is a good idea if people are waiting for a decision for six months or more. I would counter this with a YouGov poll from October of last year which showed that only 45% thought that the right to work was a good idea. This takes the issue completely out of context and ignores the bigger picture concerns. In light of the fact that 73% of people thought that illegal channel crossings were a serious issue,
50% of people thought that the UK does not have a responsibility to protect people—against 35% who thought that they did. In addition, 65% of people thought that Britain should refuse to accept asylum applications, and 55% thought that the current approach of the Government to small boats was too soft. I say that this Government have a clear mandate to ensure that there is no incentive for people to make secondary movements across the channel where academic evidence suggests that many do it for primarily economic reasons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about addressing the integration needs of asylum seekers. Of course, that is absolutely true, but not all of those who seek asylum are found to need international protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, said, 50% of asylum seekers are refused even after appeal, so that spells that out.
10.45 pm
A right to work would start to cause further delays in the system by adding further requirements, as we would have to issue new paperwork to determine whether the person had completed all the way through, and then remove the right if they were subsequently refused. Also, individuals would have to provide their own accommodation and meet utilities et cetera, and then we would need to remove them from asylum-supported accommodation for obvious reasons.
My noble friend Lady Stroud made the point that allowing asylum seekers to work prevents them resorting to illegal working. Asylum seekers can receive support until their claim and any appeal is determined. They are also allowed to undertake volunteering activities, but these must not amount to job substitution. My noble friend also asked whether we are considering any policy change to support the ongoing worker crisis in the UK. We are offering time-limited visas to certain cohorts, such as HGV drivers, poultry workers and butchers, but it is a temporary emergency measure which recognises the extraordinary set of circumstances facing the UK food supply chain.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about us running the toughest policy in Europe. Looking more closely at European countries is instructive: Austria allows asylum seekers to work after three months, but they are restricted to seasonal roles on a six-month visa in forestry, tourism and agriculture. In France, the right to work is permitted after six months, but is contingent on having a work permit, which itself requires a job offer, meaning in practice that many asylum seekers in France cannot work.
On Amendments 30A and 84A, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Hamwee, I could not agree more that the well-being of asylum seekers is an important issue. I agree that, undoubtedly, some refugees and asylum seekers will have medical needs or, indeed, issues around social care, and that it is important to ensure that they are not at risk of abuse or neglect. But these basic health and care needs are no different from those experienced by many UK citizens and, because of that, asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to access medical services, including those
related to mental health, trauma or medical assessment that are provided by the NHS, in the same way as British citizens and other permanent residents.
It is already open to the Secretary of State to commission a review of any part of the immigration system. I can point to recent examples of this: the UNHCR carried out an audit of Home Office procedures around the issue of statelessness in December 2020, some of the findings from which helped to shape changes to things such as training and the quality assurance framework that we operate. Noble Lords will also be aware of the role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.
Finally, turning to Amendment 53—noble Lords will be delighted to hear that I am about to wind up—I remain entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this proposed new clause, which aims to reduce the time individuals spend waiting for the outcome of their asylum claim, which is what we all seek.
We are clearly at a time of change to our asylum system. This goes to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston’s point. The new plan for immigration brings about a suite of measures designed to reduce abuse of the asylum system, improve efficiency within the system and focus resources on those most in need of support. At this time of change, we cannot commit to a particularly restrictive limit on determining asylum claims, which could rush decision-makers as they come to grips with new policies and inevitably lead to an increase in legal challenges, which take decision-makers away from determining claims and increase costs for taxpayers.
There are, of course, justifiable reasons why deciding claims might take longer than six months. These include, but are not limited to, modern slavery considerations, and mental and physical vulnerabilities. There is, of course, also a cohort of people whose very purpose is to frustrate the asylum system. This causes delay to the system and is one of the things we are trying to address through the Bill.
I am sorry to have given such a long-winded response, but I hope that, with my explanation, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.