On behalf of the Next Century Foundation, Lord Stone of Blackheath tabled a question in the House of Lords as to why registered asylum seekers were not allowed to work, making them feel happier and taking the burden of their accommodation and support off the shoulders of the British taxpayer. The government’s response? “There are no plans to change the existing policy . . .”

For the full story and the full government response see below:

In a pivotal moment within the hallowed chambers of the House of Lords, this week Lord Stone tabled the question to the government that has long been on the minds of many. The Government has to answer in not more than 21 days:

Lord Stone of Blackheath to ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for allowing asylum seekers to work and cover the cost of their own living expenses.

With a blend of pragmatism and compassion, he is challenging the government’s stance on accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, casting a spotlight on the exorbitant costs borne by taxpayers. His inquiry strikes at the heart of a critical issue, questioning the logic of maintaining a system that not only strains the nation’s finances but also undermines the dignity and untapped potential of those awaiting asylum determination. Lord Stone’s words, urge a reevaluation of priorities toward an approach that prioritizes utilising the skills and aspirations of asylum seekers, rather than perpetuating a cycle of dependency. His enquiry ignites a call for a more compassionate and economically sustainable path forward in addressing the needs and contributions of those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom.

Our own Question to Lord Stone

The question the Next Century Foundation asked of Lord Stone, one of our key board members, that triggered this written question to the government on his part was:

“How can the government justify continuing to burden taxpayers with the exorbitant costs of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, when a policy shift to allow them to cover their own accommodation expenses would not only alleviate this financial strain but also uphold their dignity and potentially harness the skills of those awaiting asylum determination? Isn’t it both illogical and wasteful to overlook the potential contributions of skilled individuals, such as medical workers, who could enrich the nation, while they languish in a state of dependency? Shouldn’t the focus be on facilitating their desire to work and contribute, rather than perpetuating a system that seems more concerned with administrative convenience than with the well-being and integration of those seeking asylum?”

At back of the question Lord Stone subsequently tabled and underpinning our current work on this issue was the Next Century Foundation’s written statement submitted to 54th UNHRC session. The statement was prepared by NCF team member and Research Officer, Ms Shristi Sharma, and it focused on the fact that the United Kingdom’s approach to migration needs a transformative shift. Levels of asylum seeking in the UK are driven by economic migrants seeking relief from poverty and lack of opportunities, alongside climate-induced displacement and high numbers of refugees fleeing conflict and persecution. Arguably migrant skills benefit the UK’s economy, though in the short term migrants place a strain on public services. The interplay between Britain’s need for border control and international obligations for protection is critical. Illegal migration via sea crossings is a major issue.

Read the question and the answer on this link

His Majesty’s government has presented an answer for the question asked by Lord Stone. It reads as:

“There are no plans to change the existing policy, which allows asylum seekers to work if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own. It is important that our approach distinguishes between those who need protection and those seeking to work here who should apply for a work visa under the Immigration Rules. Asylum seekers do not need to make perilous journeys in order to seek employment in the United Kingdom, and we are concerned such a change could be a further pull factor.

The Home Office has a legal obligation, as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to support asylum seekers (including any dependants) who would otherwise be destitute. This may include the provision of accommodation and/or subsistence support.

The level of the allowance given to those supported under 1999 Act is reviewed each year to ensure it covers asylum seekers’ essential living needs.”

Read the Written Statement at back of our question to Lord Stone on this link

The UK needs both measures for safer routes and enhanced cooperation. We could and should facilitate family reunification, grant the right to work for asylum seekers, improve international cooperation for a balanced distribution of migrants within Europe, and focus on dismantling smuggling networks. Addressing the backlog by prioritizing children’s welfare and establishing mechanisms for faster processing would also create a more compassionate, efficient, and sustainable migration approach in the UK.

However, enabling asylum seekers to work is just fundamental good sense. Is the ordinary citizen of the UK expected to pay vast sums for hotel accommodation for thousands of would-be migrants to the UK, when people are crying out for workers and these self-same asylum seekers are, in large part, both eager and willing to work?