The Government voted against Lords amendment 59 of the Immigration Bill, which would give asylum seekers unrestricted access to the labour market after six months, regardless of whether their case is delayed due to their own actions and regardless of their character or conduct.
Under current Government policy, asylum seekers are only allowed to work if their asylum claim, or further submissions, has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Those who are allowed to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list.
This policy has been designed to ensure a clear distinction between economic migration and asylum. It protects the resident labour market and discourages those not in need of protection from claiming asylum for economic reasons. The amendment takes no account of the employment needs of our economy. It undermines our efforts to ensure access to the labour market is prioritised for British citizens and those with leave to remain here, including recognised refugees.
Under the amendment, the cases that would be granted permission to work include those who had purposely frustrated the asylum process and complex cases involving those accused of serious criminality such as war crimes. I do not believe that it is right or sensible.
The Immigration Rules allow non-EEA nationals to work in the UK where there is no suitable resident worker available. These provisions give priority to those filling roles on the shortage occupation list published by the Home Office and are subject to numerical limits. The amendment would undermine this approach.
There has been much debate about historic delays in decision making in the Home Office. But this has now been brought under control and in the majority of cases asylum seekers receive a decision within six months. Whilst awaiting a decision, they receive free accommodation and a cash allowance to cover essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. They can also undertake volunteering activities while their claim is outstanding and we are exploring ways to support this.
An increase in unfounded claims would delay the processing of claims from genuine refugees and undermines our progress towards a fair and efficient asylum system. More importantly, we should not be doing anything to encourage more people to risk their lives on dangerous journeys into and across Europe instead of claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach.
I strongly believe that we should maintain our existing policy, which is a fair and reasonable approach consistent with our international obligations and takes into account the rights and needs of our society as a whole.