After listening to speeches made by the Home Secretary over the last few months, who is promising to fix the “failed asylum system that costs the taxpayer over a billion pounds a year,” you might be forgiven for assuming that the Home Office is finally listening to advice from the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, which recommended that the government review its policy on the employment ban for asylum seekers. The advice could hardly come at a better time; it is possible that the delays in processing Ukrainian refugees’ visas will mean that some will attempt to make the crossing over the Channel, so it is imperative their ability to support themselves and feel welcome in the UK is not hampered by ineffectual policy. 

It will come as a disappointment, then, that it appears determined to continue with a policy that, in actuality, only serves to hamper the economy and place an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Asylum seekers who are waiting for a decision on their claim are, at present, not permitted to undertake paid employment of any kind for 12 months, after which they are restricted to the Shortage Occupation List. You’d be wrong to think that this list actually encourages asylum seekers to work in industries where they are most needed; the list includes dance choreographers and Gaelic teachers. 

Whilst they await a decision, asylum seekers are placed into accommodation and are expected to live on £39.63 a week. Placing obvious questions of basic human dignity aside for one moment – this amount is only half of the sum paid to those on the Jobseeker’s allowance – it is nonsensical from an economic standpoint. The cost of housing and allowances for asylum seekers stands at £430 million per year. Conversely, new figures by Refugee Action have shown that the Treasury could have benefitted from an extra £876 million in the last 10 years from tax and National Insurance receipts alongside the savings made on asylum support. Moreover, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics have shown that there is currently a record 1.2 million job vacancies across the UK, a gap which would be partially plugged by asylum seekers. 

Granting asylum seekers the right to work would also bring a host of other benefits. Numerous studies have shown that shorter waiting times have a significant positive impact on long-term employment. Employment allows them to meet and socialise with people within their community, facilitating language learning. So it’s frustrating that the current employment ban is causing many to disengage with the labour market, and that the periods of destitution asylum seekers currently face only serve as a detriment to both their mental health and their ability to integrate. 

It is clear that reducing the waiting time is a common sense policy, so it’s worth asking why the government has not already seized the opportunity to do so. The answer, at least to the Home Office, appears obvious; the Department’s priority is to “reduce pull factors to the UK.” Yet this policy is not predicated on any empirical research. The single most significant factor associated with asylum claims in Europe is conflict, which makes push factors far more consequential. Even more compellingly, studies which have looked into links between European asylum policies and the number of asylum applications received in each country have found no correlation between labour market access and asylum seekers and an increase in asylum applications. 

Significantly, the Home Office has never produced any evidence to the contrary. Its policy therefore appears to be based on what it perceives to be an anti-immigrant feeling among voters. But even this is a fallacy; a recent poll has shown that 81% of the public think people should be allowed to work if they have been waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum claim. 

Fortunately for the government, the opportunity has arisen to finally overturn the employment ban. On Tuesday, the Commons will be voting on a clause to the Nationality and Borders Bill which would reduce the waiting time to six months, and remove the Shortage Occupation List requirement. If Conservatives really believe that work is the best route of poverty, here is no better opportunity to stand by their principles. 

Emily Fielder is Head of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute.