Sir, The Archbishop of York, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster and their fellow bishops and church leaders (letter, Dec 3) have made a welcome contribution to the debate about people whose claims for asylum have been unsuccessful.

It is not true, however, that current Government policies make people in this position destitute. Where there is no viable route of return or there are problems with documentation, the Government does provide accommodation and essential living needs. Where there are no children involved this provision is conditional on co-operation with the voluntary return process, which we are also beginning to impose in a small number of family cases.

The decision to stop the support provided to families is not taken lightly. There is a four-stage process before this happens. Discussions take place with families to discuss options which involve giving the family a chance to explain why they cannot leave immediately or to put forward any human rights ground which they think means support should continue.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that many unsuccessful asylum-seekers who have exhausted all rights of appeal choose not to access support from central government. Instead, we hear that they are destitute or living on food parcels. The reasons for this, and possible ways of improving the situation, are things on which I am only too happy to join a debate with Church Action on Poverty and anyone else who can help.

Dr John Sentamu and colleagues state that there are many cases where people are unjustly refused asylum. I do not underestimate the gravity of this assessment. I am anxious to learn more of what lies behind this view, particularlywhen we have so recently reformed the immigration appellate system in the interests of justice.

The Government believes that managed migration is a valuable source of skills and labour to the British economy. We set out our proposals for clarifying the system in the five-year strategy published last February. However, entering the country for economic reasons is not the same as seeking asylum and it is important to maintain the distinction between the two. This is why we do not generally allow asylum-seekers to work.

TONY McNULTY
London SW1

Sir, There is a respectable case — on economic, humanitarian and moral grounds — to be made for Britain having a welcoming policy towards those who wish to settle here.

However, the question rarely publicly addressed is whether such a policy is what the majority of the population wants. Most evidence suggests that it is not.

Without direct consent from the electorate we have seen in a relatively short period massive changes in the character of British society, resulting in resentment among the majority population and alienation among the new ethnic groups.

The best intentions of your correspondents in this matter are admirable, but it isdoubtful if persuasion, exhortation or the law will much change fundamental majority attitudes which are opposed to a multi-ethnic, multicultural Britain.

PETER GOODCHILD
Tadworth, Surrey

Sir, It would be easy to think of the victimisation of asylum-seekers as a modern problem. We should not forget that people fleeing persecution were knocking on doors in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.

JON SCOURSE
North Stoke, Oxon

Explore Letters

• Feedback