The UK government’s migration policy is “disconnected and incoherent” and involves the pitting of one government department against another, a report by MPs has said.
The international development committee (IDC) urged the government to double the number of vulnerable refugees offered resettlement in Britain, up to 10,000 a year.
It also called for a review on the restrictions placed on refugees being allowed to work in the UK while they wait for a decision on their asylum applications.
While the IDC praised efforts by the Department for International Development (DfID) to create “anchors” – efforts to help refugees to rebuild their lives in Africa – it said that work was undermined by the Home Office’s approach to asylum seekers and refugees.
MPs expressed concern over the government’s policies on addressing migration to Europe, particularly via the Khartoum process – whereby Europe aims to prevent Sudan’s refugees from reaching Libya and the Mediterranean – and support for the Libyan coastguard, saying the UK was “clearly undermining its commitment to human rights and protecting the most vulnerable refugees”.
Witnesses to the inquiry raised fears that the Khartoum process “de-prioritises human rights” in favour of meeting migration targets. Such concerns were more pressing, the report noted, because of the recent crackdown by the Sudanese government on the media and protesters and because of a lack of transparency around the process.
There was “significant concern” that the government’s approach to forced displacement has been influenced by its wish to control numbers. While this is understandable, the committee said, it is “important to remember that the vast majority of those forced to flee their homes remain in the region”.
Stephen Twigg MP, the committee’s chair, said: “We have significant concerns about the government’s continued engagement with Sudan and Libya on migration and displacement. The brutality of the conditions of Libyan detention camps are well-documented, as are human rights abuses in Sudan. The government’s work in these areas risks undermining its commitment to human rights and its ability to protect some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”
Twigg praised “anchor” programmes including the Kalobeyei settlement in Kenya, in which 38,000 refugees have been granted the same access to schools, health facilities and markets as their host community, using a special currency called “Bamba Chakula”.
“This is, however, not an easy option for host countries,” Twigg said. “While we recognise the great improvements that the right to work and right to movement can bring, it can be unpopular and costly in nations where livelihoods are scarce and incomes low. That is why it is so important that the UK behaves at home as it is asking some of the world’s poorest nations to do.
“We should not be asking nations to house and employ refugees when the numbers we take in are so small, and the employment freedoms limited.”
There was a “pressing need”, the committee said, for a more joined-up approach to migration and displacement across government.
“DfID encourages host governments to give refugees the right to work, whilst the Home Office significantly limits asylum seekers’ right to work in the UK. DfID pushes for durable solutions for refugees, whilst the Home Office limits the number of resettlement places in the UK,” the report said.
It called the funding for refugee crises “woefully inadequate”.
Marta Foresti, a director of the Overseas Development Institute, who gave evidence to the inquiry in November, welcomed the report.
Foresti said: “While the UK should be praised for the support offered to refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, such as expanding access to jobs in countries like Ethiopia, this also needs to be matched by an increased effort to do the same in the UK, where those seeking asylum are banned from working.
“Such double standards and the lack of coherence between UK policies at home and abroad risks undermining the country’s overall effort to support development and facilitate safe and regular migration.”