Introduction

In the previous chapters we saw how the legislative and policy framework has contributed to the social exclusion of asylum seekers. The history of dispersing refugees across the UK was also examined and it was suggested that the contemporary dispersal of asylum seekers is taking place within a qualitatively new environment that has emerged since the mid-1990s and been manifest through several Acts of Parliament. The exclusionary processes resulting specifically from the introduction, structure and implementation of dispersal are the main topics of this chapter. It is suggested that there was an in-built element of deterrence in the design of dispersal, which meant that tensions were inherent in its implementation from the outset.

Separating asylum seekers from mainstream welfare provision created a more visible group and entrenched the distinction between asylum seekers and recognised refugees. It is suggested that this separation and the provision of parallel services specifically for asylum seekers is itself a form of social exclusion. Whereas the role of supporting asylum seekers had previously been undertaken by local authorities, with the introduction of dispersal this became centralised by the Home Office and ultimately administered by the now-disbanded NASS. This centralisation and the speed of its implementation did not allow time for adequate consultation or planning in the early stages. The high number and conflicting roles of agencies also involved power imbalances and tensions between organisations with a hierarchical structure for implementation denying adequate representation from asylum seekers themselves.

Compulsory dispersal is now taken for granted as being entrenched as a policy and the founding rationale for its introduction rarely questioned. Robinson (2003a, p 165) has argued that ‘apologists for dispersal are curiously silent about the rights of the asylum seeker’. The right of freedom of movement is the most obvious breach. That dispersal is based on a ‘series of contestable assumptions’ (Robinson, 2003a, p 167) is the basis of this chapter.

Pre-1999 ‘informal dispersals’

As in Chapter One, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 introduced new social security regulations and imposed severe restrictions on welfare entitlements. Using an ‘in-country’ and ‘at-port’ distinction, benefits were withdrawn from ‘in-country’ applicants. This resulted in local authorities, mostly in London and the Southeast, having to provide support for destitute asylum seekers (Audit Commission, 2000a, p 9).