The governance of housing asyulm seekers and refugees in comparative perspective : the case of Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom

THE GOVERNANCE OF HOUSING ASYULM SEEKERS

AND REFUGEES IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: THE

CASE OF SWEDEN, GERMANY AND THE UNITED

KINGDOM

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Amsterdam in fulfilment of the

requirements of the degree for Master of Science in the Department of Political Science,

International Relations

Presented by: Renske den Boon

Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 2016

Supervisor: Dr. Jeroen Doomernik

Second Reader: Dr. Robin Pistorius

ABSRACT & KEYWORDS

With the high influx of refugees seeking asylum in the European Union, Member States are presented with a political dilemma. On the one hand they have the obligation to protect asylum seekers according to internationally acknowledged human rights, on the other hand they want to secure their nation from outsiders. This leads creates a political problem for EU states, especially concerning housing. With an already tight housing market, the influx of asylum seekers puts housing high up on the political agenda, creating many controversies. This thesis examines ways that national policy makers of the UK, Sweden and Germany have responded by shifting the institutional locations of policy making and policy execution. In evaluating state responses, the article identifies the devolution of authority and decision making, upwards to the intergovernmental field, downwards to local authorities, and outwards to non state actors. Hereby not losing sovereignty, but using different canals to maintain it. While we see different practices of the delegation of state responsibility to other actors, counter practices are also detected. Ultimately, the absence of hard EU legislation and authority on housing and an unwillingness of states to give up their authority on this matter leads us to believe a common liberal asylum system protecting the rights of refugees is still far away.

Keywords: Asylum migration; EU; Housing; State policy; Government; Multi-level Governance;

CONTENT

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 5

Chapter 1. Introduction 6

1.1 Introduction 7

1.2 Problem definition, Ambition and research question 8

1.3 Structure of the thesis 9

Chapter 2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 10

2.1 Literature review 10

2.2 Theoretical framework: Multi-level governance and restructuring of the state 12

2.3 Conceptual framework 14

Chapter 3 Research object 17

3.1 Demarcation of the research subject 17 3.2 Methods & Datasources 19

Chapter 4 The “Europeanisation” of asylum system 21

4.1 Schengen and Dublin 21

4.2 Maastricht treaty 22

4.3 Tampere Programme 22

4.4 Reception Conditions Directive 2003 23 4.5 Reception Conditions Directive 2013 24

Chapter 5 The case of the United Kingdom 26

5.1 History and Legislation 26

5.2 Shifting National Discretion upwards? 27 5.3 Shifting Downwards, Changes in Responsibility 28 5.4 State Hired ‘Gate-keepers’ 29

Chapter 6 The case of Sweden 31

6.1 History and Legislation 31

6.2 Shifting National Discretion upwards? 32 6.3 Shifting Downwards, Changes in Responsibility 32 6.4 Complex network of Governance 34

Chapter 7 The case of Germany 36

7.1 History and Legislation 36

7.2 Shifting National Discretion upwards? 37 7.3 Shifting Downwards, Changes in Responsibility 38

7.4 ‘Semi-Sovereign’ State 40

Chapter 8 Conclusion 41

8.1 Recapitulation of findings & Conclusion 41 8.2 Relevance to the theory 42

8.3 Possible implications 42

8.4 Looking ahead: harmonising standards of living 43 8.5 Recommendations for further research 43

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


Common European Asylum system

Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights

European Asylum Support Office European Commission

European Court of Justice

European Court of Refugees and Exiles European Court of Human Rights European Parliament

European Social Charter European Union

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination

(Justice and) Home Affairs Local Authorities

Multi-Level Governance

Non-Governmental Organisation United Kingdom

United Nations

Universal Declaration on Human Rights Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

In Brussels, only a metro rides away from the EU headquarter, a tent camp has sprung up outside the Immigration Office. Parc Maximilian is full of tents, which now houses up to some 800 people from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea. Belgium is not the exception here, in many European 1

countries, asylum seekers are reported to live in refugee tent camps, overcrowded reception centres, former prisons, hotels and other improvised forms of temporary accommodation. 2

This situation is due to the increasing large inflow of refugees to the European Union over the past decades. From the Balkans and the collapse of the communist regimes in the 1990’s, until more recently from from conflict areas in the Middle East and North Africa. In 2015, the number of asylum applications in the 28 Member States of the EU (EU-28) rose from 627 thousand in 2014 to almost 1.3 million. While the numbers of asylum seekers were relatively low during the first 3

decade of this century, since the Arab Spring and conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East, since 2012 numbers have increased rapidly. As states were arguably ill prepared for such an influx, the number of asylum seekers has created a housing problem. There is a ’bottleneck’ in the initial housing, caused by the inability of current institutions to deal with a large number of registrations and handling applications, which leaves many asylum seekers stuck in temporary housing for many weeks, sometimes months or even years. Furthermore, after extensive waves of privatisation of the 4

housing market in the past decades and the pressure on the housing market since the financial crisis in 2008, many countries were already under pressure to provide social and affordable housing for their own citizens. With the sudden increase of asylum seekers, EU member states are being challenged to find appropriate housing on both a temporary and permanent basis. 5

States have an obligation to protect refugees and asylum seekers, including the provision of accommodation. As the European Commission declares: “Asylum is a fundamental right; granting it is an international obligation, first recognised in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees. In the EU, an area of open borders and freedom of movement, countries share the same fundamental values and States need to have a joint approach to guarantee high standards of protection for refugees […]. The EU Member States have a shared responsibility to welcome asylum seekers in a dignified manner, ensuring they are treated fairly.” The Geneva Convention is only 6

one of numerous International Laws that EU member states signed to show their commitment to the protection of refugees. Since then many protocols, treaties, and directives have reiterated this obligation. Not only do they have to provide housing, but the standard of housing should also be

Deutsche Welle via http://www.dw.com/en/a-tent-camp-for-refugees-in-the-eu-capital/a-18718681

1

BBC via http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-36314536

2

Eurostat Statistics 2016 via http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information

3

Housing refugees rapport (2015) IFHP, p8

4

Ibid 4 p2

5

European Commission via http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/index_en.htm

adequate, and protecting the dignity of asylum seekers. How states serve these International obligations regarding housing lies within their national authority. This discretionary room has led to a situation in which every country has a different asylum reception system.

Considering the image described above, we would expect to see that states would do everything in their power to protect and adequately accommodate these asylum seekers. However, the immigration of refugees is uninvited, often unwelcome, hard to control and carries a high price; to ensure their assimilation and protection, states receiving refugees must expend resources by providing them with housing, jobs, education and more (Kritzman-Amir, 2008:359). It is therefore acknowledged by scholars, that states, try to control immigration and avoid taking on this task (Kritzman-Amir, 2011:211-12). The sovereignty of a nation state over a given territory and population was and is based on the exchange of the political provision of welfare in exchange for the internal loyalty of their citizen. As loyalty is one side of the coin, the other side is external closure at the borders of their nation-states. This structure creates a potential problem for the state (Bommes & Geddes, 2003:2, Hollifield, 1994, Sassen, 1996, Joppke, 1998). The national community may feel threatened, which can lead to a social or political backlash against immigration. It may become difficult for a state to identify its population vis-a-vis other states and most importantly, the “demos” (citizens) can be transformed in such a way that it violates the social contract between the state and its citizens. This transformation undermines the legitimacy of the government and sovereignty of the state itself (Walzer, 1983 in Hollifield, 2004:887). This situation leads to a political paradox where states need to protect asylum seekers as demanded by the values of the modern liberal states which are laid down by international law. At the same time, they also try to secure the exclusion of asylum seekers from European societies to protect their nation states (Bank, 2003:149). States are concerned about the long-term upward trend in aggregating numbers, and the uneven distribution of asylum applications across countries. This situation forms the background to the ‘policy backlash’ that has occurred in the past decade and a half (Hatton, 2005:107). What we have seen is a trend where states avoid the responsibility of having to take care of asylum seekers and attempt to fend them from their territory and their welfare system (Bank, 2003). In the light of these hypotheses, this thesis will extensively study the policy of the Swedish, British, and German state and moreover will demonstrate the usefulness of the theory of ‘state restructuring’ for this research.

PROBLEM DEFINITION, RESEARCH QUESTION AND AMBITION

We would expect by the commitment of states to the protection of human rights of asylum seekers, that states take responsibility for the reception and housing of asylum seekers. But in reality, it seems to be the situation that states try to avoid this responsibility, by shifting it elsewhere. This problem is the motive to research how the British, Swedish, and German state governments cope with the responsibility of housing asylum seekers. This study aims explicitly at EU level and state level reports and second-hand literature on the subject. The thesis does not aim to explain where these different policies find their origin, or at determining which of these policies is best, but to

give an image of various forms of state responsibility on the asylum policy of housing asylum seekers.

This thesis aims to draw a picture of the process of asylum policy through country comparison approach. By searching through the materials for differences and similarities in Swedish, British, and German state policy, this thesis will try to gain insight in the governance of asylum policy and the role of the state in general. The question which has been leading in the research is the following:

How do the British, Swedish and German state level governments cope with the responsibility of housing asylum seekers? And how can this be explained?

It does not seem that the influx of asylum seekers to the European Union is going to end soon and the housing of asylum seekers presents, therefore, an ongoing problem and difficulty now and in the future. The shifting of the ‘burden’ of asylum seekers means a shifting of responsibility in who will provide welfare and ensure the human rights of refugees. If states do not take on the responsibility for housing asylum seekers, there is a chance that they remain destitute. For these reasons, this thesis is timely and relevant. Comparative research will give insights in the process of state approaches to housing asylum seekers and is related to a broader context of state restructuring in EU member states. By studying this relation, it can contribute to a debate on the future possibilities and impediments of the housing of asylum seekers and refugees. Moreover, it can spark the normative public debate on the ethical responsibility of states to provide housing for asylum seekers and the future of a common European Asylum approach.

STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

In the light of the assumptions presented above, the primary task is to identify theories which will help understand and contextualise the complex political reality of state policy making. Therefore, Chapter 2 will provide the theoretical framework of this thesis. First, it will place this thesis in a broader research field to which this study tries to contribute. This chapter will make clear how the research is embedded and relates to a tradition of research wherein state asylum policy is examined. Hereafter, a theoretical framework will be presented with theories on multi-level governance and the ‘hollowing out’ of the state, followed by a conceptual framework. The objective here is to look into the assumptions and concepts developed by scholars of multi-level governance and in particular Jessop’s theory on state restructuring that form the basis elements of this thesis. These theories provide ideas on why different states have same policy outcomes. Furthermore, it will briefly touch upon the theoretical scholarly debate on the decline versus the resilience of the state, to which this study wants to contribute.

The definition and demarcation of the research subject will be discussed in Chapter 3. The research subject is state policy concerning the housing of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK, Sweden, and Germany. The data mainly rests on secondary data and EU and individual state policy

rapports. Hereafter, there is a short indication on how the analytical chapters 4 to 7 have been established.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of the road towards a harmonised European asylum policy by evaluating the route of the EU towards relevant regulation, asylum policies and programmes. This chapter will examine the role of the EU in individual state policy. Chapter 5, 6 ,and 7 are the country analysis of which Chapter 5 will present the case of the UK, Chapter 6 the case of Sweden and Chapter 7 the case of Germany. These cases demonstrate how states deal with the responsibility of housing asylum seekers by examining changes in policy, legislation, and implementation. The thesis finalises with Chapter 8, where the main findings of the analytical chapters will be related to the theory. Furthermore, in this chapter, there will also be reflected on choices of data and methods, and there will be a suggestion for the possibility of a European Asylum policy. 


CHAPTER 2.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUALISATION

This research can be positioned in a broader field of studies on state immigration policy. Firstly, I will give a short overview of the recent literature on state immigration policy in the EU. Secondly, theories on multi-level governance/government and restructuring of the state will provide the overall framework for studying the logic behind the shifting of authority and responsibilities. Lastly, I will elaborate on the important concepts used by the theory and discuss the scholarly relevance of this research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the context of EU member states asylum policy, much has been written on the increasing restrictiveness of migration and asylum policy, increasing EU cooperation and burden sharing between states. It is commonly argued that the increasing number of refugees seeking asylum in the EU, and the uneven distribution of asylum seekers between the EU member states has lead to a wide range of policy reforms. These reforms involve restrictive entry, toughening the process of determining the legitimacy of asylum claims, and making living conditions less favourable for asylum applicants (Hatton, 2005:107). According to some scholars (Kaunert, 2009, van Selm-Thornburn, 1998), policy convergence in the direction of more restrictive measurements can be ascribed to a lack of a harmonised EU asylum policy. The relative restrictive of countries’ asylum regimes can have come to be regarded as one of the principle reasons for disparities in asylum burden and their variation over time. Host countries with will try to make their asylum policies more restrictive to make other destination countries more attractive. In the absence of an effective common European policy, this competition is said to lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ of restrictive policies (see Schuster, 2000; Noll, 2000; Lavenex, 2001; Hudson, 2007). Some scholars are very sceptical about the actual influence of the EU-level cooperation and see an incomplete and complex policy area where member states are involved in a power competition instead of collaboration (Guiraudon, 2003). The development of asylum law has occurred on a bilateral level between states, not top-down through broad European harmonisation (Byrne, Noll & Vested-Hansen, 2004). Other scholars like Thielemann & Enany (2011:3) see that refugee protection entails some collective action problems (Suhrke, 1998, Betts, 2003, Thielemann and Dewan, 2006, Roper and Barria, 2010). However, rather than leading to policy harmonisation at the ‘lowest common denominator’, EU asylum laws have tended to upgrade most of the national legislation in the several Member States, protecting the standards of several groups of forced migrants (see also: Hatton, 2015; Kaunert & Leonard, 2011).

To this day, the scholarly interest in the shift of authority of migration management focuses primarily on Europeanisation or outsourcing of the execution of immigration policy. Immigration policy focuses on controlling migration, as opposed to integration or immigrant policy, which concentrates on what to do with immigrants once they are in the States territory. Examples of

shifting authority within immigration management are found in detention and transportation, border guarding, deportation and labour market cooperation. Menz (2011:33) sees the outsourcing of control and detention functions to private companies to be part of the paradigm of new public management. In the context of migration control, the older and most widespread form of privatisation are carrier sanctions on private airlines and other transportation companies (Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2011:161).

Although an essential aspect of asylum policy, the housing of asylum seekers and refugees remains underdeveloped. The research on the housing of asylum seekers is mostly focused on the UK, as it has had the most significant changes in the outsourcing of asylum housing. There are some comparative studies like Dell’Olio’s (2004) comparative analysis of Italy’s and the UK’s immigrant housing policy but focusses mainly on problems related to the housing policies of the respective states and lacks the theoretical aspect for a deeper understanding of the issue.

GAP IN THE LITERATURE

The literature presented above has a few shortcomings in answering my research question. First of all, most studies are about immigration control policies, and not about immigrant policies like housing. Secondly, these studies either look at the state level, at the European level, or at the relationship between these two levels. Scholars like Favell (2005) have questioned the effect of this state-centric view on migration research. Such a national orientation, however, could hamper the comparative and theoretical development of migration research (Scholten & Penninx, 2016:93). National paradigms of migration and integration reduce complexity and introduce a historical-institutionalist bias in explaining and reifying national differences. This type of view has led scholars like Bommes (2010) to conclude that it restricts the urge of migration scholars to look for more generalisable theoretical accounts of differences as well as similarities between countries. And while research European cross-national comparative research is increasing, just like the recent attention to the local level. These studies still have the tendency to focus on one level only. The study of multi-level governance seeks to understand the interaction between the levels and explore the consequences regarding relations between the different levels.

Housing is an issue that should be addressed at another level as well. Policies are implemented at the local and regional level, where we can make a distinction between local state actors, such as municipalities, and non-state actors, such as non-profit and for-profit organisations. The type of research that looks at the local, state and supranational level is described in the literature as multi-level governance/government. Based on the assumption that states try to find ways to shift responsibilities elsewhere, the state remains a central actor in this thesis. The importance of different level players, the inclusion of the private sector in the theory and a broader understanding of the role of the state were the reasons for using Jessop’s theory on ‘state restructuring’ as the theoretical framework for analysing state policy on housing asylum seekers and refugees. I will start by explaining multi-level governance and extend this with Jessop’s theory before presenting the central concepts.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE OR MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNMENT?

The idea of ‘multi-level governance’ (MLG) was introduced in the 1990’s and captures the denationalisation of statehood, the de-statisation of politics and the re-articulation of territorial and functional powers - especially how these trends were unfolding in the European Union. One sign of the development of MLG is the rise of tangled hierarchies and complex interdependence. (Jessop, 2004:21-22). This situation is in contrasts with the case of multi-level government, where states hold sovereign authority within a hierarchical command structure and evaluate their dominance versus state actors. Scholars of European governance look at how state and non-state actors organise their common interests across several territorial levels and diverse functional domains. What we see according to Jessop, is that there is a struggle between national (and regional and local) actors to shape the emerging forms of MLG, to develop the rules of the game and the outcomes for different participants in governance arrangements. However, a lot what seems like MLG in the EU, happens actually in the shadow of multilevel government (ibid:23). It is the strategic use of MLG by states to realises their objectives when these can no longer be realised through direct coordination. A key feature of the renewed expression of statehood is the redistribution of competencies away from the sovereign national state, although not necessarily at the expense of its operational autonomy and capacities to pursue state projects. Thus, the national state ‘is being reinvented rather than superseded’ as a way of meeting new challenges (ibid.).

RESTRUCTURING THE STATE

Jessop combines MLG with a trend that is sometimes called the ‘hollowing out of the national state (Roberts & Devine, 2003). He describes this as: “Powers previously located at the national level are being transferred upwards to supra-regional or international bodies, downwards to regional or the local level, or outwards to relatively autonomous cross-national alliances.” (Jessop, 2004:15). It reflects attempts by state managers on different scales to ‘enhance their strategic capacities and their respective operational autonomies.’ Furthermore, the line between state and non-state actors in the political system is being shifted as activities are re-assigned. De-statisation redraws the ‘public-private’ line, where formal state functions are being transferred entirely or partially to other non-governmental private or commercial actors, institutional arrangements or regimes. This trend is associated with but not confined to neoliberalism and the privileging of the market and third sector over the state. The informal sector and the private enterprise - especially in delivering welfare and collective consumption - are strengthened. It does not imply an overall loss of government power because the state can influence and mobilise these “partners” to secure the aims and ambitions of national policy agenda (Clarke and Glendinning, 2002).

The boundaries between the economic and the political system are being reified as the economy is no longer interpreted in narrow terms but include many factors that were before seen as ‘non-economic’ to improve economic performance and competitiveness. It requires state retreat from some areas of intervention and increased state control in actively creating new subjects to act as partners. States attempt to transform the identities, interests, capacities and responsibilities of economic and social forces so that they can be more flexible, capable and reliable actors in the economy. Thus, states create new players and hand over authority to players who then execute policy in line with their political agenda (Jessop, 2004:18).

In the political realm, the many changes discussed above have tended to undermine coherence and hierarchy of the modern interstate system. The international context has become more significant for domestic politics as local and regional states are affected by a wide range of global issues such as migration. Moreover, political communities and publics are being re-imagined in various ways. They have become de-territorialised and defined below, above, or transversal to existing national states. The primacy of human rights over national citizenship, cosmopolitanism, transnational social networks are all examples of this trend. These conceptions of political community are linked to struggles to redefine the nature and purpose of the state and find alternatives for territorialised forms of political power (ibid.). 7

COUNTERTRENDS

According to Jessop, to combat the denationalisation of statehood, national states seek to play a central role. In the face of growing complex interdependence, states seek to maintain and enhance their political capacities by participating in public-private partnerships or delegating public responsibilities to private institutions and actors. They are also more involved in organising and steering self-organisation of governance regimes. It marks a shift from a top-down hierarchical political organisation to an emphasis on steering multiple agencies, institutions and systems that are operationally autonomies but are structurally reciprocal interdependent (ibid:19). Important is that we don’t see the state as redundant. It is still having a central role, not despite the restructuring of the state, but partially because of it.

STATE THEORY AND ASYLUM POLICY

The underlying assumption of the Keynesian welfare national state model is that it delivers welfare to a relatively homogenous closed national population. Although this idea has never perfectly reflected reality, increasing migration is said to undermine these basic assumptions. According to Dwyer (2005:623), national governments increasingly become more involved in complex multilevel networks of governance to keep force migrants out and to provide meagre levels of welfare for those who enter their territory. States have elevated aspects of their asylum policy to the

See for more examples Sassen, S. (2002). Towards post-national and denationalized citizenship. Handbook of citizenship studies,

7

supranational level, while reforming they asylum policies with a movement of responsibility for the welfare of asylum seekers and refugees out of mainstream systems and reducing the levels of provision. Like Dwyer, I will use Jessop’s theory to evaluate state policy on housing in specific and making a comparison of three EU countries.

CONCEPTUALISATION: REFUGEE, RESPONSIBILITY, THE STATE & ASYLUM

POLICY

REFUGEES

Since the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 New York Protocol, to which all liberal democratic states are signatories, refugees have an own set of rights. The legal definition of a refugee is: “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, outside the country of his nationality and who is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such a fear, is unwilling to return to it.” 8

The right of refugees to seek asylum is defined by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which was adopted in 1948. People have the right to flee from persecution and leave their country of origin to seek asylum in another state, stating: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” This combination of the right to apply for 9

asylum and the definition of a refugee leaves states with an obligation. Not the duty of accepting refugees, but the obligation of processing their asylum claim. The Office of the United Nationas High Commissioner for Refugees (Hereafter UNHCR) defines an asylum seeker as someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated. In this 10

process, the asylum application is judged according to national procedures, after which an asylum seeker is granted refugee status or declined and sent back to his or her country of origin or a safe third country. This thesis will use a broad conception of an asylum seeker as a person crossing international borders to flee human rights abuses and conflict and who applies for asylum in another state for protection.

RESPONSIBILITY

The moral and humanitarian principle for states to protect and accommodate asylum seekers are laid down in International aw. Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Geneva Convention of 1951, Article 1A (2)

8

Article 14(1) UDHR via http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

9

UNHCR via http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c137.html?gclid=CN3SscSLy8oCFcG6GwodcxkNDg

1966 (ICCPR) accords protection to aliens who are lawfully in the territory of a state party. Asylum seekers’ rights to adequate housing are outlined Article 21 of the Refugee Convention, which poses an obligation on the state, to accord refugees the most favourable treatment as possible, which should never fall below to what aliens, in general, would get (Breen, 2008:615).

The origins of the right to adequate housing can be located in Article 25(1) of the UDHR, which concerns the right to adequate standards of living stating: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” The right to adequate housing outlined in the UDHR 11

reappears in Article 11(1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination 1965 (ICERD), which once again puts an obligation on state parties to take appropriate steps to ensure the realisation of this right. The Committee on Economic Social and 12

Cultural Rights (hereafter CESCR) expanded the meaning of adequate housing. According to the CESCR, the right to adequate housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense. For example, the shelter being merely a roof over one’s head or viewing shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. 13

Furthermore, the CESCR stressed the importance of not just housing, but adequate housing stating: “Adequate shelter means ... adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate location concerning work and basic facilities – all at a reasonable cost.” 14

Many of these standards are reiterated at the European level. The European Social Charter 1961 (ESC) provides a right to housing. And the Council Directive of 2003 and 2012, lay down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. The directive refers to Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and to Article 18 which guarantees the right to asylum “with due respect for the rules” of the Refugee Convention and in line with the Treaty establishing the European Community. Thus, although the EU made some provision with 15

regards to the rights of asylum seekers, the states are bound to the obligations under the Refugee Convention (Breen, 2008:623).

Besides the right to adequate housing, international law also gives the right to freedom of movement. The right to freedom of movement within the territory of a state is recognised by the Geneva Convention, which obliges member states to accord to ‘refugees lawfully in its territory’ the right to move freely within its territory subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in

GA res. 217A, (III) UN doc. A1810 (1948).

11

GA res. (XXI), UN GAOR 21st Sess., (Supp. No. 16), at 49, UN doc. A/6316 (1966).

12

CESCR, The right to adequate housing (Art.11 (1)): 13 Dec. 91, General Comment 4, para. 7.

13 13

GA res. 217A, (III) UN doc. A1810 (1948).

14 14

Secretary of State for the Home Department via http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/

15

document_print.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30db24de9c769e264885af75beb8df2c1966.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuKchr0? doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=109961&occ=first&dir=&cid=30606

the same circumstances (Article 26 in Bank, 2003:155). A member state should also guarantee choice of residence according to Article 26 of the Geneva Convention applying to ‘refugees lawfully in its territory’ (ibid.). Responsibility for housing thus means that the states are obliged to provide housing according to the standards laid down in international law.

STATE

The concept of the state is about political power over a particular territory. For this thesis, I focus, in line with Jessop’s theory, on the changes in Keynesian welfare national states (or KWNS). These state emerged in North-Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand during the 1950’s and 1970’s and while being far from identical, they have enough commonalities to provide a benchmark for assessing state change in advanced capitalist economies over the last quarter century or so (Jessop, 2004:14). The national state should be distinguished from the nation-state since the overlap between a nation, and a state is not universal. This thesis will, therefore, speak of a national state. States also do not exist in isolation, but are part of a political system and have complex relationships with other institutional order (e.g., the economy, religion, science, education, culture) and civil society. Also, should be noted, that although theory on globalisation often assumes a decline of the state, this is not a zero-sum game (ibid:13). The concept of the state is also related to the notion of the welfare state, something I will elaborate further through defining the object of study.

POLICY

When analysing policy, it is for this research meaningful to make a distinction between immigrant policy and immigration policy. Immigrant policy addresses the question of what to do with the immigrants once they are here. Immigrant policy deals therefore with issues such as welfare, public housing, etc. In other words, it focuses on what to do about the effects of immigrants on society. On the other hand, immigration policy dresses the question of who should be allowed to immigrate and in what numbers (Dell’Olio, 2004:108), thus controlling migration flows.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH OBJECT

This chapter will first define and demarcate the research object, after which the data and the method of research will be discussed. The chapter will conclude with a reflection on the research model.

DEFINITION AND DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH OBJECT

WELFARE STATE

The most dominant comparative model on the distribution of state and market and the institutional organisation of a state is the worlds of welfare capitalism (Esping-Andersen, 1990, 1999). The concept of the welfare state is particularly interesting for studying state policy on immigration.The sovereignty of nation states over a given territory and population is based on the political provision of welfare in exchange for the internal the loyalty of their citizens. This implies external closure at the borders of the nation states. The dimension of loyalty and welfare state provision is viewed as a potential problem because of the political loyalty and welfare claims of migrants. Immigration control and immigrant inclusion policies try to regulate migration processes and their consequences within the national unit (Bommes & Geddes, 2003:2). Responses to immigration in national welfare states have differed enormously with social inclusion and exclusion mediated by national historical, social and political contexts, with a strong emphasis on territoriality and by diverse organisational and economic infrastructures of different welfare state types. These are a primary condition for the particular design of immigration and immigrant policies and have significant consequences for the conditions of immigration, the status of migrants, and their social entitlements (ibid:16).

The basis of a welfare state depends on the way welfare production is allocated. This allocation means how responsibilities between markets, families and government are divided. Esping-Andersen (1990, 1999) distinguished three varieties of worlds of welfare capitalism (welfare-state regime). The Nordic universalist, the Anglo-Saxon liberal and the corporatist Continental and Mediterranean regimes.

WORLDS OF WELFARE CAPITALISM

The Nordic universalist welfare state features a a combination of universal schemes with entitlement based on citizenship or residence and programs that are tailored to differentiated expectations (Esping-Andersen, 1990:112). This formula translates into a mix of highly decommodified universalistic programs. The comprehensive social provision has included a wide 16

decommodificatios can be described as the process of removing products from market, to decrease citizens market dependency. See

16

range of public services. Norway and Sweden are the clearest examples of this regime (Sainsbury, 2006). The Anglo-Sazon liberal welfare state derives its name from the classic or laissez-fair liberalism that influenced the regime’s properties. These are a heavy reliance on means-tested programs and a strong preference for market solutions. The state encourages market solutions both passively and actively. By providing only bare minimum, the state passively supports market solutions, and through subsidies, the government actively supports private welfare arrangements (Esping-Anderson, 1990:111). The archetypical examples of this model are the United States, Canada, and Australia. Nations that approximate the model are Denmark, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (Kolberg, 1992:111). The conservative corporatist regime is characterised by work-related social insurance schemes that offer generous benefits. The state is the provider of welfare, and therefore private involvement has a marginal role in this model. It is typically shaped by the church and a strong commitment to traditional family patterns (Esping-Andersen, 1990:112). Examples of the corporatist regime are Austria, France, Germany, and Italy (Kolberg, 1992:111).

The choice of the three countries in this study has been dictated by the theory on the welfare state regime of Esping-Andersen. The comparative strategy in this thesis is based on comparisons of countries selected by varieties in welfare regime type. This approach grows out of one of the concerns of this thesis: to understand the importance of state variations for the examining the general theory on state restructuring. Besides different welfare regimes, other frameworks could be used for analysing how states deal with migrants. One of them is the incorporation model (Soysal, 1994). This model looks at how states regulate and facilitate migrants’ inclusion or exclusion from society. For example, Germany and France are both part of the corporatist regime, but France has an inclusive incorporation regime while Germany has an exclusive incorporation regime (Sainsbury, 2006).

Thus, the welfare state regime by no means says everything about how a state will deal with migrants. There are many social policy differences between countries representing the same welfare regime. We should be wary that we cannot directly link a welfare state regime to a particular way of asylum management. The point is however that the selected countries have a very different institutional organisation in the way the market and the state and civil society relate to each other. If we find that all these countries in some extend show similar trends of shifting authority upwards, sideways and downward, we can evaluate this as a sign of state restructuring.

HOUSING

From the moment a refugee makes an asylum claim, a state is responsible for the provision of accommodation. This provision can have different forms, depending on the individual state. Accommodation includes (initial) reception centres, collective accommodation, private accommodation, temporary accommodation like hotels, public buildings, etc. For the scope of this thesis, detention will not be included in housing. This thesis will include housing policy from the moment of the asylum claim up until the decline or admission.

METHODS

The methodological approach of this thesis is a national comparative study. Many cross-national research literatures contrast two research strategies: one that looks for statistical regularities, another that searches for cultural or historical differences. When finding similarities, caution is needed. Similarities at one level of analysis can still be very different at more detailed levels of analysis. The critical issue is how to interpret differences when these are found. Where one finds cross-national similarities, the explanation can be found in the social-structural regularities common to all (Kohn, 1987:717). When cross-national differences are found, the scope of interpretation must be curtailed. If state restructuring does not explain the differences, what does explain it? In the interpretation of cross-national differences in history culture and political or economic systems, it is difficult to distinguish the explanatory factor in what causes the difference (ibid.). This does not necessarily have to be problematic, but it is something that has to be kept in mind with this type of research.

In the type of cross-national research I will be conducting, national states will be the unit of analysis as well as the context. The countries I have chosen based on their differences in welfare regimes, can be seen as an intervening variable which can result in differences in policy. But it is also the context in which I use national state policy in order to hypothesis on a more general social process: one of state restructuring. It is then not necessary that I have chosen the specific countries that I have within the different regimes.

DATA SOURCES

This study draws on secondary data as a primary source, relying on published research, government and intergovernmental literature. The sources in this thesis include books, edited volumes, journal papers and special issues dealing with European and asylum/refugee and immigration policy from post-WWII until this day. Besides these sources, relevant publications which include statistical data, policy documents and reviews, from government ministries and intergovernmental agencies such as UNHCR, EU, and in-country voluntary organisations. These secondary sources have formed an essential base point for this thesis and are listed in the bibliography.

Each source has constraints for this study. Caution is needed in interpreting the findings, which are often rather inferential than conclusive. These qualifications are now considered. It is important to emphasise that this thesis is build on an extensive range of secondary data, extrapolating beyond the original intentions of the research. Thus much of the literature which is drawn upon is:

- Covers either a whole range of immigration or immigrant policy rather than a detailed account of the housing policy which is proposed, or focusses on state housing policy in general.

- Has been written to demonstrate the negative or the positive impact of asylum policy on either asylum seekers or EU cooperation

- Covers a variety of time series

In short, as with any research using secondary research, there are significant challenges and qualifications in consistency, comparability, and comprehensiveness ( Zetter et al., 2003:21).


CHAPTER 4 TOWARDS AN “EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM”

EU cooperation in the field asylum policy has undergone enormous transformations. This section will give a description of the most important agreements that have been established by nation states on a European level. I will analyse policies and programs that have led towards a “common EU policy” concerning migration, asylum and housing. The aim of this chapter is to show ways in which states have cooperated on their asylum approach and whether and how they have elevated aspects of formerly state discretion up to the European level.

SCHENGEN AGREEMENT & DUBLIN CONVENTION

The principle of free movement is the cornerstone of migration policy in the European setting (Scholten & Penninx, 2016:95). The establishment of the Schengen Agreement was one of the first significant steps in European integration. With the Schengen Agreement, an “area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured” (Huysmans, 2000:755). The Schengen Agreement was not fully implemented until June 1990. States abolished internal border controls, while harmonisation of land and sea border controls to non-members was encouraged. The focus was on tackling issues of crime (especially drugs trafficking) and later migration (EC, 2008 in Ferguson Sidorenko, 2007:13). According to Scholten & Penninx (2016), the free movement of EU citizen is a key supranational element of the Europeanisation of immigration policies and has had an apparent binding effect on member states. Without internal borders, asylum seekers could move freely in the Schengen Area. The Dublin Convention of 1990 was perceived as a necessary countermeasure of the abolition of internal border controls (Da Bomba, 2004:117). It rests on the principle that only one state can be held responsible for an asylum seeker and states were obliged to act according to the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Because states would give up part of their national autonomy, the negotiations to find a common standard concerning this responsibility took several years. While agreeing on criteria, many states tried to circumvent international obligations to keep control over the assessment of asylum applications in their country (Vink, 2013). On September 1997, the Dublin Convention entered into force. According to Battjes (2006), Dublin was mainly about preventing “asylum shopping”. 17

The removal of external borders of the EU with the Schengen system placed an emphasis on the movement of asylum seekers within the Schengen Area. The Member States who have external borders facing non-EU states, are far more likely to be a ‘first country of entry’ for asylum seekers. Under the Dublin system, states agreed on a mechanism that assigns responsibility for asylum seekers in the EU to the ‘country of first entry.' When asylum seekers move on to another Member State, he will be transferred back to the country of first entry. With this mechanism, Member States

Asylum shopping means that a refugee makes multiple applications in different countries. The asylum seekers maximise the

17

likelihood of getting protection status or being admitted to one or even more countries, but this leads to a duplication of efforts (and costs) for the Member States (Thieleman & Armstrong, 2013: 149).

have placed a disproportionate responsibility (for the costs) on EU countries with external borders (Thieleman & Armstrong, 2013:149).

MAASTRICHT TREATY

In the 1990’s, the influx of refugees fleeing the Yugoslav Wars and the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe became an important incentive for the Europeanisation of asylum and immigration policies. With the formal establishment of the European Union and the Maastricht 18

treaty in 1992, asylum and immigration issues were established as a political sphere based on intergovernmental cooperation (Guild, 2006:639-640). The EU created a pillar structure and adopted stronger forms of unification. The result was a monetary union and other non-binding but unified coordination on economics and labour. The Maastricht Treaty introduced two new ‘intergovernmental pillars’ on Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), which included asylum matters. Asylum and migration fell under the so-called Third Pillar based on “non-binding” cooperation, and only co-operated on by terms of consensus, which means that supranational institutions had hardly any influence on the individual member states decision making (Best & Christiansen, 2011:438-439).

With the entry into force of Treaty of Amsterdam (ToA) in 1999, most of JHA policy areas relating to the free movement of people (including asylum, migration and external border controls) moved from an intergovernmental approach to a common approach (Espinoza and Moraes, 2012). The ToA introduced legislative competence and incorporated the Schengen system into EU law. This transition is perhaps the most important step towards a common EU policy since it means that asylum and migration issues were regulated through legislation via EU institutions instead of previous cooperation between sovereign individual member states (Meyerstein 2005:1519-1520). The European Council (Hereafter EC) meeting in Tampere that followed in 1999 was the “landmark” moment of EU co-operation and acknowledged that “separate but closely related issues of asylum and migration call for a common EU policy” (Espinoza and Moraes, 2012:158).

THE TAMPERE PROGRAM

The work on adopting harmonised and common asylum laws throughout the EU can be summed up in three framework programs; the Tampere program, The Hague Program and the Stockholm Program (Fontaine, 2010:59). The Tampere programme’s aim was to develop a common standard for a fair and efficient asylum procedures, and of particular concern for this thesis, common minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. Despite this desire for an EC instrument on immigration and asylum, member states were still reluctant to give up their national authority. The UK and Ireland did not integrate into the Schengen Area and partially opted-out of the ToA (Guiraudon, 2003:271). They requested to take part in agreements involving police and judicial cooperation, but not in areas of visas and border control policy since the UK is an island, it saw its

History of CEAS, ECRE http://www.ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/introduction/194.html

national interest “best served” by having an independent border and visa policy. Denmark, 19

although signing the Schengen Agreement, could choose which measures to opt-in or opt-out (ibid: 270). Roughly a year after the Tampere meeting, member states had agreed to provide for common minimum standards of reception of asylum seekers, which led to the first supranational model on harmonised reception conditions (Hailbronner, 1998:1047). The European Council adopted an EC instrument with some general guidelines on the reception of asylum seekers. ‘Conditions of dignity’ was at the core of this document, and national governments should have sufficient room for manoeuvre. The freedom of movement, the level of material and financial benefits, the reduction 20

or withdrawal of reception conditions as well as labour market access and the treatment of special needs persons, were especially controversial among member states (Handoll, 2007).

Agreeing on the Directive was a was long and complicated process, and states like France and Germany lobbied for a limited role of EC institutions in the Treaty and circumscribed the role of the ECJ. These pressures undermined the idea of a European Common approach to deal with asylum seekers (Guiraudon, 2003:270). Finally, in January 2003 the Directive was adopted, with minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. This time, the UK decided to participate in the adoption and application of the Directive. Under pressure from the British government, Member States agreed to the inclusion of Article 16, which outlines the power of a state to withdraw the right of social support is an individual is deemed to be abusing the system (Dwyer, 2004:11). Following the Preamble of the Directive, the principal aim was to adopt minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers that will ‘normally suffice to ensure them a dignified standard of living and comparable living conditions’ across Europe’ (Rosenberger & Konig, 2012:541). Practically, the provisions regulate a range of material support including housing, food and clothing and non-material conditions like education, healthcare, and employment. It is argued that states are willing to participate with these conditions because they try to reduce the possibility of having more “generous” welfare provisions, which supposedly attracts large numbers of asylum claims (Refugee Council, 2004). The hope is that restrictive policies in one state may have a knock-on effect in pushing people to try and enter another EU state (Caviedes 2004 in Dwyer, 2005:624).

RECEPTION CONDITIONS DIRECTIVE 2003

The 2003 Reception Conditions Directive states that all Member States “shall ensure that material reception conditions are available to applicants when they make their application for asylum”. 21

They also have to make provisions to ensure an adequate standard of living, which includes special needs applicants and persons in detention. The member states are allowed to make the asylum 22

seeker cover, or partly contribute to, the costs of the material reception conditions and heath care if

HM Government ,review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union, 2014. see https://

19

gcn.civilservice.gov.uk/

Council Document Nr. 13865/00, press 457-G

20

Council Directive 2003/9/EC, Article 13(1)

21

Ibid: Article 13(2)

the applicant has the resources to do so. The member states can decide to provide the material reception conditions through cash allowances, vouchers, in-kind or a combination of these provisions. According to Article 15, all accommodation provided in kind, should be in the form of 23

accommodation centres with an adequate standard of living, or private houses, flats or hotels. Member states have the duty to protect the applicants’ family life, and the asylum seekers should

24

have the possibility to communicate with relatives, legal advisors, UNHCR and other NGO’s. The Directive also states that these material reception conditions may differ from the stated rules for a shorter period. It is accepted when material reception conditions are not available in the geographical area, when the asylum seeker is in detention, or when housing capabilities are exhausted. 25

The Hague Program from 2005 was the second phase in the establishment of a common asylum system. The aim of this program was for the Member States to implement legal instruments from the first stage and to provide satisfactory reception facilities (Carrera, 2013:235). Member states backed away from this objective and pushed the deadline until 2012, because of political difficulties in reconciling the big differences across the EU in the number of asylum applicants and recognition rates of those who applied. 26

RECEPTION CONDITIONS DIRECTIVE 2013

The Stockholm Program was the last out of the three framework programs. The program included responsibility sharing between member states and cooperation with the UNHCR. It also had more explicit goals regarding reception conditions like the equal treatment of asylum seekers. The rules on material reception conditions in the revised directive are in many ways very similar to the ones in the 2003 Directive. However, the revised Directive now clarifies that when the member state is providing material reception conditions, especially when they are provided in kind, that states can give the asylum seekers less favourable terms than member state nationals. The new directive 27

also included that family members can now also access accommodation to assist applicants, not just legal advisers and representatives from the UNHCR and NGO’s. States have no longer the obligation to place minors with their family, but now all gender and age specifics should now be taken into consideration when housing asylum seekers. A significant clause that was added compared to the 2003 Directive is that member states can now set modalities for the material reception conditions different from the rules. It used to be in the 2003 directive in case of

Council Directive 2003/9/EC Article 13

23

Ibid: Article 15

24

Ibid: Article 14

25

Migration Information Source, 2010 http://www.bollettinoadapt.it/old/files/document/5362MPI_IMMIGRAZIONE.pdf

26

Council Directive 2013/33/EU Article 17

detention or based on geographical area, but now states can only deviate from the standard when housing capabilities are excused. 28

Unlike the UK, which has not opted into the recast versions of the CEAS Directives, Germany and Sweden have implemented the new versions, including the Reception Conditions Directive and the Qualification Directive. Also, they have implemented all EU legislation concerning entry, residence and return of non-EU citizens. With the expiry of the deadline for the 29

transposition of the recast of the Reception Conditions Directive in July 2015 the obligations of Member States have become more stringent and are now binding. Yet the sharp increase in arriving numbers of asylum seekers, together with a lack of preparedness on the part of European asylum systems to these higher number, have according to AIDA (2016:30) revealed a large divide between theory and reality of reception standards.

Furthermore, as shown above, the minimum standards that are set out in the Directive are quite ambivalent. Numerous preconditions often accompany the provisions, and, on the other hand, several core requirements remain largely unspecified. For example, Article 7 on ‘Residence and freedom of movement’ states that asylum seekers may move freely or within an area assigned by the member state, but it is vague and unclear what the minimum size of such an area is. 30

Furthermore, it is only specified that it cannot prohibit the access to all benefits under the directive (Rosenberger & Koning, 2012:541). These margins of appreciation, make national implementation highly significant. National traditions and institutional pathways are having a large influence on how the Directive is implemented in policy (ibid.).

This chapter has shown the route to a ‘Common European Asylum Approach’ which is amongst other things aimed at accomplishing EU standard quality in reception and accommodation of asylum seekers. The effects of the influence of CEAS on national policy and implementation is highly debated. Did CEAS in fact have a harmonising effect on different EU member state policies? In the upcoming chapters 5, 6 and 7, I will present the cases of the UK, Germany and Sweden and analyse individually (1) most important context and legislation concerning asylum seekers and housing, (2) the influence of CEAS on their national policies (3) the changes in actors who share responsibility for housing asylum seekers (4) placing state policy in a broader perspective of state restructuring.

Council Directive 2013/33/EU, article 18

28

European Commission - Press release, see http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5699_en.htm#_ftnref2

29

Council Directive 2003/09/EC, Article 7

CHAPTER 5 THE CASE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

HISTORY AND LEGISLATION

The issue of asylum in Britain was rarely prominent until the mid- 1980’s, due to a relative small number of asylum applications (Shisheva, 2013:114). The Geneva Convention and resettlement were the primary objective of UK’s refugee policy and provision. Because the number was relatively small refugees arrived in specific influxes according to quotas, the state response was largely decentralised and was characterised by an incremental approach to asylum reform (Hollifield, Martin & Orrenius, 2014: 85). Although the UK had a strong focus on control, the commitment to accepting and protecting quota refugees reflected a relatively favourable policy stance towards asylum seekers (Zetter & Pearl, 1999:238). Because of this situation, the challenge of accommodating refugees was relatively unproblematic.

The changing nature of refugee movements towards the end of the 1980’s led to a second phase in which the UK transformed their policies towards a far more restrictive framework. The the dramatic rise in the number of refugees was not the only problem. The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers arrived spontaneously, whereas before they arrived relatively orderly and systematic through resettlement programs. Increasing pressure on the housing market and welfare facilities in the major areas of settlement necessitated the introduction of a coordinated asylum approach (Home Office, 1998). In the 1990’s, the context of asylum seeker settlement changed radically. The number of asylum seekers kept increasing rapidly and the public option had turned against them, radicalising the issue and labelling them as ‘bogus’ and undeserving. Alongside this trend, the government linked housing policy with immigration control, making the former part of a broader strategy of deterrence (Robinson, 2003:122).

The 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act under John Major’s Conservative government was the first piece of primary legislation dealing with asylum specifically. It enacted policies which aimed at; making the claim for asylum more difficult; curtailing the rights for legal protection; and removed many of the welfare entitlements asylum seekers and refugees previously enjoyed (Zetter & Pearl, 1999:239). The Asylum and Immigration Act of 1996 introduced many important changes. One of the most controversial provision was the “safe countries” provision in which the Secretary of State could designate countries in which there was “no serious risk of persecution”. Germany by this time already operate similar arrangements (House of Commons, 1996 in Shisheva, 2013: 114). The Acts created also “fast-track” procedures for asylum applicants, allowing detention of asylum seekers and reduction of their benefit. The 1996 Housing Act introduced major constraints to access to public housing by asylum seekers. Alongside this, the housing services became increasingly fragmented.

A significant piece of legislation to affect the current housing and settlements options of asylum seekers is the 1999 Asylum and Immigration Act (Philips, 2006:542). The refugee

destitution and housing crisis in mainly London was the context for the Labour Government to review the asylum system. The Act introduced the so-called ‘dispersal scheme’ to disperse asylum seekers throughout the country to designated areas. The act intended to relieve the pressure from the South and London in particular where the housing supply is short compared to the rest of the country. Not only do half of all immigrants in the UK live in London and the South-East, but more than two-thirds of new immigrants are also settling there (Dell’Olio,2007:123).

Overall, the situation of the UK indicates a long-term trend of restrictionism and reduced support for applicants starting in the mid-1990’s. The legislation has systematically curtailed welfare and housing entitlements and accommodation choices of new arrivals through a series of stringent measures designed to deter and control asylum seekers flows (Phillips, 2006:542). Law recognises access to housing for refugees, but in practice, a large sum of refugees in the UK receive no targeted help with housing. It provides no permanent housing and leaves asylum-seekers vulnerable to homelessness (Bloch, 2000, in Dell’Olio,2007:122).

SHIFTING NATIONAL DISCRETION UPWARDS?

As Rosenberger & Konig (2012:542) noticed, the obligation to human rights, refugee law and the implement action of the 2003 Reception Conditions Directive, have failed to significantly alter the political stance towards the reception of asylum seekers (see more examples Bloch and Schuster 2002, Squire 2009). In the negotiations of the Directive, the UK government introduced important amendments to the proposals, amongst one that states that: “Member State may refuse reception conditions in cases where an asylum seeker has failed to demonstrate that the asylum claim has been made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in that Member State”. This provision 31

was nationally already introduced in 2002 by the Immigration and Asylum Act. The UK government secured the inclusion of this amendment after threats to opt-out from the Directive (Maurer and Parkes, 2007 in Shisheva, 2013:187). The UK implemented the Directive in 2005 shortly before the implementation deadline expired. Probably the most signifiant change in the implementation of the Directive was the area of employment. The government had to reverse its current policy and specify the conditions under which asylum seekers may be allowed to work (Shisheva, 2013:189). On accommodation, no significant changes were made as the British regulations were already in line with the Directive.

The influence of the EU on the British asylum policy is far more limited than on Germany and Sweden for the reasons that the UK did not opt into the border and visa elements of Schengen and into the second round of the Reception Conditions Directive, the Asylum Procedure Directive, or the Qualification Directive. British engagement with EU migration and asylum policy is point out that the UK agreed on around half of the measures between 1999 and 2004. According to Geddes (2005:737) has the UK been most active in those areas where EU integration is seen as a potential solution for domestic political issues. The UK has sought to participate in EU actions that

Memo/02/300 European Council on the reception conditions of asylum seekers in Member States. via

europa.eu/rapid/press-31