This
paper describes the background to the current debate around the idea of refugee
resettlement to the UK sparked off by recent government announcements and
proposes a set of principles to guide the development and implementation of a
UK resettlement programme.
In
June 2000, Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, outlined his vision of the future
of EU asylum policy at a European summit in Lisbon, Portugal. He proposed an
EU-wide programme, large enough in scale to have an impact on the number of
asylum seekers making their own way to Europe. The Refugee Council’s views on an EU wide scheme are
set out in our paper Refugee Council response to ‘UK Home
Secretary’s Lisbon Proposals on Asylum: a Discussion Paper’, January 2001.
The
Refugee Council broadly welcomed the proposal, providing that member states
continued to meet their existing legal obligations to those who sought asylum
in the EU, that it was established under the auspices of UNHCR and that people
selected for resettlement should be only those most in need of protection. We
noted that, according to UNHCR, the majority of people attempting to enter the
EU illegally, who are faced with numerous barriers imposed by EU governments,
are fleeing from countries producing large numbers of recognised refugees. We suggested that such people would
welcome a safer way of reaching the European Union and supported UNHCR’s
view that a large-scale EU resettlement programme might reduce the impetus to
resort to people smugglers. We also expressed a number of concerns about how
such a scheme might operate, most of which are reiterated below.
We
look forward to the publication in July of a study by the European Council for
Refugees and Exiles of the likely impact of these and other policies of
‘regionalisation’. The
European Commission has also commissioned a feasibility study for an EU
resettlement scheme and asylum claims from outside the EU. Results are expected
in early 2003.
The current Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has recognised that such ideas will take some time to implement. Meanwhile, he demonstrated in his statement to the House of Commons on 29 October 2001 his practical commitment to the concept by proposing a UK resettlement scheme that would “provide a means of transporting in safety a number of refugees, for whom life in their region of origin was unsustainable”. He made a welcome commitment to operating the scheme in conjunction (“bilaterally”) with UNHCR and “in addition to current UK asylum determination procedures.”
In
his statement of 7 February 2002, launching the White Paper on Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum, Mr. Blunkett characterised resettlement as “the
new ‘gateway’ for those seeking to settle in Britain” (one of
a number of gateways, according to the White Paper, that would allow refugees
“to have their claim considered before they reach the UK”). Annex
E, recognises that, in fact, it would represent an extension of two existing
“informal” schemes: the ad hoc or mandate refugees programme for those
“who have settled family members in the UK who can support them until
such times as they have permanent residence here” (80-100 cases a year)
and the Ten or More scheme for refugees with serious medical needs (literally
10 or more cases). Of greater concern, Mr. Blunkett describes those who come
via this gateway as ‘legitimate’, implying that those who travel by
other means are somehow not legitimate, a distinction that does not reflect
international refugee law.
The
Refugee Council welcomes the Home Secretary’s proposal as a small step in
the right direction and hopes that in developing his ideas, he will draw on the
experience of the Refugee Council and other NGOs. The Vietnamese, Bosnian and
Kosovan evacuation programmes, which share many characteristics with
resettlement, left an important legacy of relevant knowledge and
expertise. And the Refugee
Council, together with its UK and European partners continues to develop best
practice in the integration of asylum seekers and refugees, which will be just
as applicable to those who are resettled.
A
UK resettlement programme offers a number of potential benefits, such as:
· immediate protection
and/or a long-term solution for a small proportion of the world’s most
vulnerable refugees who would otherwise have no chance of leaving their region
of origin;
· an avenue, for those who
will benefit from the programme, around the barriers that make it almost
impossible for refugees to reach the UK legally and an alternative to the
expensive and dangerous option of using human smugglers;
· an opportunity to foster
public goodwill towards refugees;
· practical support for
UNHCR, which is trying to expand its resettlement programme
· a gesture of support to
developing countries who shoulder the greatest share of the responsibility for
the world’s refugees.
If,
however, the scale of the programme is to be no more than a few hundred cases,
as has been indicated by Ministers, the benefits will be negligible. Whilst we
recognise that, as a pilot, it is likely to expand in the future, the
government should have no illusions that such a modest programme will result in
a reduction in the number of asylum seekers making their own way to the UK. Nor
will it impact on the global business in smuggling and trafficking of human
beings, a market created by the barriers placed by European governments in the
way of people who need our protection.
The
Refugee Council believes 12 principles should underpin the UK’s resettlement
programme:
Visa requirements, fines on carriers, immigration checks at airports of
departure and a whole range of other barriers mean that for the vast majority
of the world’s refugees there is no practical, legal means to reach
sanctuary in Europe, still less the UK. In October 1999, at a summit in
Tampere, EU governments promised to “offer guarantees to those who
seek protection in or access to the European Union”. With approximately 22
million refugees and other persons ‘of concern’ to UNHCR in the
world, a UK resettlement programme on the scale proposed cannot be regarded as
a credible attempt to keep that promise.
The government should be looking at those barriers, considering whether
they are consistent with obligations under European human rights law and the
1951 refugee convention and investigating ways of ensuring that they do not
prevent those in need of protection from accessing it.
The UK must meet its obligations to asylum seekers, who should not face
any adverse consequences as a result of a greater emphasis on resettlement. We
welcome the commitment in the White Paper that “the UK’s
resettlement programme would operate in addition to current asylum determination
procedures.”
A two-tier system must not be allowed to develop, as it has in
Australia, where those who arrive in an ‘unauthorised’ manner are
locked up in remote detention centres and even if they are eventually granted
asylum, are only granted temporary status. In other words, even if a person is
recognised as a refugee, they can never enjoy the same rights as someone with
an identical claim who arrived on the resettlement programme.
The Kosovan humanitarian programme and similar schemes in the past have shown how effectively a group that is unquestionably in need of protection can be used, with positive leadership from politicians and the media, to promote public sympathy for refugees. The government should tackle the problem of racism and xenophobia directed at asylum seekers by using the resettlement programme to better inform the public about the reasons why people become refugees and why they must be offered protection.
At the same time, firm action must be taken to stop
the idea from developing that “resettled = good refugee, asylum seeker =
bad”, which has allowed two-tier systems to evolve in other major
resettlement countries.
There are more than 14 million refugees in the world, according to the
US Committee for Refugees; another 21 million people have been forced to leave
their homes, but not having crossed an international border, are classified as
internally displaced, rather than refugees. The vast majority are supported by
developing countries, many of them engaged in on-going conflicts.
Towards the end of 2001, Pakistan was hosting an estimated 2 million
Afghan refugees and Iran 1.5 million. By contrast, just 130,000 Afghans applied
for asylum in the whole of the EU between 1991 and 2000. Just under 2,000
Sierra Leoneans sought asylum in the UK in 2001, while neighbouring Guinea, one
of the world’s poorest countries, hosts 300,000, or one third of the
world population. The UK, one of the world’s richest countries, granted
asylum to just over 10,000 asylum seekers of all nationalities in 2001.
In order to demonstrate a real commitment to sharing responsibility
with developing countries, the number of refugees resettled should be
proportionate to the UK’s wealth and population. The Refugee Council
welcomes an indication in the government’s recent White Paper that it
intends to expand the number of refugees in need of medical care that it
receives under the ‘Ten or More Programme’. UNHCR finds such
resource-intensive cases among the hardest to place with host countries.
5.
The UK programme must be conducted in close partnership
with UNHCR, in accordance with its Resettlement Handbook and must be founded
wholly on the principle of resettling those in greatest need of protection.
Resettlement must be used solely
for the dual purpose for which UNHCR’s programme is designed: firstly, as
a protection tool for meeting the special needs of refugees whose life,
liberty, safety, health or other fundamental human rights are at risk in the
country where they sought refuge; secondly, as one of UNHCR’s long-term
‘durable’ solutions to the plight of refugees (the others being
local integration and voluntary return).
Resettlement must not be used to
select refugees, according to UK labour market needs or other non-protection
criteria. Economic migration objectives should be dealt with through work visas
and other legal migration channels. Nevertheless, refugees and people in
refugee-like situations should be eligible for such schemes and should be fully
informed of those options.
UNHCR generally submits cases for resettlement to receiving countries
once it has determined that:
a)
the applicant is a mandate refugee (determined as a group or
individually)
b)
other durable solutions are not appropriate (i.e. local integration or
voluntary return to country of origin)
c)
the applicant meets one or more of the following criteria for
resettlement:
i)
legal and physical protection needs
ii)
medical needs
iii)
survivors of torture
iv)
women-at-risk
v)
family reunification
vi)
children and adolescents
vii)
elderly refugees
viii)
refugees without local integration prospects
The government should consult UNHCR and NGOs regularly, and at least annually, on those groups to be given priority, either according to category (emergency cases, medical evacuations, unaccompanied children) or by country or region of origin. The allocation of sub-quotas may facilitate planning of reception programmes that meet the specific needs of groups selected.
‘Vulnerability’ reinforces the principle
of priority going to those most in need of protection. ‘Informed
consent’ means that applicants must fully understand that they are to be
resettled to the UK and give their agreement. Finally, every effort must be
made to ensure that families are not separated.
Refusals should be justified with clear reasons, but
care should be taken to avoid presenting countries of asylum with opportunities
to declare the applicant not to be a refugee and return them to a situation
where they faced persecution. For some years, Pakistan, for example, has been
keen to return to Afghanistan those Afghans refused resettlement to third
countries: care has been taken to specify that such people have not necessarily
been determined not to be refugees, but have simply not met the criteria for
resettlement to specific countries.
Field missions, which should include NGO representatives,
as well as government officials, should be used to monitor the selection
process, inform UK-based decision-makers and so maintain confidence in the
system. They can investigate complaints and follow up reports of any
particularly vulnerable groups in regions of the country of asylum where UNHCR
is not operational. They also offer an opportunity for NGOs to provide
applicants with information about what to expect in the UK.
Resettled refugees arrive with particular needs for reception,
orientation and integration that are similar, but not identical, to those of
asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status. Services provided as part
of any resettlement programme must dovetail with and complement those for
asylum seekers who have received positive decisions on their asylum claims and
must be properly funded. Funding must be additional to the asylum support
system and must not divert resources from it.
Reception and integration services for resettled
refugees must complement those for people who arrive spontaneously and must be
fully in accordance with the Home Office’s refugee integration strategy.
Currently, resettled refugees on the ad hoc and Ten or More programmes are left destitute for weeks, dependent on Red Cross handouts, while awaiting documentation that proves their full entitlement to benefits. Closer co-operation with the Benefits Agency could help minimise the suffering this causes. Co-ordination with the Department of Health would ensure that people resettled for medical reasons had rapid access to health care. The Department of Education should be consulted on how to introduce resettled refugee children into mainstream education as rapidly and smoothly as possible: school being the best way of reintroducing in children who have often suffered years of upheaval, loss and trauma a sense of stability and normality.
Suitable partners include NGOS with experience of
the existing ‘ad hoc’ resettlement and Ten or More
programmes (ICRC, British Red Cross, Refugee Housing), those with experience of
evacuation programmes (Refugee Council, British Red Cross, Refugee Action,
Scottish Refugee Council), and those organisations working towards the
integration of refugees (e.g. members of the National Integration Forum).
Refugee Council
March 2002
For more information please contact:
Richard Williams
International Protection Project
Refugee Council
Email: richard.williams@refugeecouncil.org.uk