26. Memorandum submitted by
Mr Peter Gilroy, Kent County Council
1. What are the
reasons for the rise in asylum applications to the UK in the last
10 years?
I think it would be helpful before attempting
to answer this question to explain why I have any interest in
this subject. Clearly, the fact that Dover is within the Kent
County Council boundary is self-evident. Dover Harbour is, in
fact, the busiest port of entry within the UK. However, I became
involved in this subject in 1995-96 when it was apparent that
youngsters were appearing at the port and Social Services were
being asked to look after them. This build up of numbers continued
and following the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996 which attempted
to reinforce restrictions on support for asylum seekers. This
meant that asylum seekers who claimed in country were destitute
and became the responsibility of the local authority under the
National Assistance Act.
This started a very serious step change in my
managerial interest in this subject as the numbers of people started
to increase in this category. In 1996, Kent had just 50 asylum
seekers; by 1999 (from April through to December) the Social Services
looked after over 15,000 asylum seeker arrivals and during the
latter period of that year, we were dealing with 1,000 per week.
This was a huge learning curve for both myself and my colleagues.
By 2000 Kent County Council were looking after thousands of incoming
asylum seekers and a significant number of unaccompanied minors
(currently 2,000 which is the largest single caseload for any
authority in the UK). Of course, our responsibilities here lie
within the Children Act 1989.
It was noticeable that many of the asylum seekers
we saw from 1998 were related to the conflicts then erupting in
the Balkan states and subsequently, most of the asylum seekers
we now support come from countries of known conflict such as Afghanistan,
Iraq and latterly, Zimbabwe. Our colleagues in the Calais region
tell us that many of the migrants they see are keen to reach the
UK for reunification, a belief that their asylum clam will be
dealt with more fairly and that benefits and the possibility of
work will be greater. It is certainly my belief that traffickers
publicise certain countries. We had evidence of this in the late
1990s.
Again during the late 1990s we had hundreds
of asylum seekers wishing to communicate by telephone with Southern
Italy on their arrival. We subsequently visited Brindisi (Kent
County Council and Kent Police) where we met with the Interior
Ministry, Local Government in Apulia and the local representatives
of the Roman Catholic Church who were organising the care. It
was during this period that we became aware of the sophisticated
methods employed by the traffickers and realised that the economic
value of the trafficking of human beings meant that the traffickers
would exploit any route or method to maintain their income. We
realise that the telephone calls to Italy were to release money
to the traffickers on the basis that the individual/family had
arrived at their destination. This even included the trafficking
of young women for prostitution accompanied by minders. From this
trip, we learnt the necessity of separating asylum seekers in
order to ensure that protection needs were met where appropriate.
It is therefore not surprising that UK Governments
have struggled to improve the asylum process faced as it has been
with the above drivers towards illegal immigration and a general
move from East to West with regard to economic migration. It is
noticeable that over the last 10 years there have been many legislative
changes in asylum and the implementation of these changes has
tended to herald an increase in asylum applications prior to the
changes.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for making
the following comments, as I am, of course, not a specialist in
[this area] international politics. However, it would seem to
me that if the European Union had greater coherence regarding
issues of economic migration and if this were coupled with a more
transparent approach to those seeking asylum particularly if it
were through a quota system, it could provide greater security
and equity across Europe as a whole. I am, however, sure Governments
have aspired to this over recent years and in any event signing
an agreement in spirit and complying with it to the letter are
completely different things. I am probably somewhat naïve
in this matter!
2. How adequately and fairly are asylum applications
being managed today? How did the backlog of asylum determinations
arise? Is it being dealt with satisfactorily?
From my comments above, it will be clear that
I am very aware of the large numbers who have sought asylum in
the last few years. It is inevitable that this has placed a strain
on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate services just as
it has done on my own. It seems to me that in order to be satisfactory
any asylum process needs to be fast and transparent. It also needs
to be clear that a failure to gain refugee status does not result
in an ability to stay illegally in the UK for many years.
The asylum system needs to make robust and fair
decisions quickly and to act on those decisions with speed and
efficiency. It appears that the current system is open to exploitation.
At the present time, many people wish to come to the West to better
themselves economically, at a time when the demography of our
population requires an additional skilled workforce. It would
seem more rational if employment opportunities could be assimilated
to our immigration policies, particularly at countries of origin.
I would like to see greater flexibility in providing employment
opportunities for both youngsters and those in the asylum system.
Their potential contribution, given the high levels of education
of many, is underestimated. At the present time, there are very
few ways of entering the West and the only gateway that effectively
encompasses all of the many groups who might wish to come to the
West is that of asylum. Given international events, none of us
should be surprised if the system becomes cluttered with individuals
who do not meet the requirements for refugee status. Many asylum
seekers come to the UK as the favoured destination in Europe because
they believe it is the country where the asylum processes leave
them "the best chance of staying".
I will now address the question with more detail
on operational issues. My comments in this area need to be tempered
with the knowledge that managing risk in terms of making fair
decisions in asylum is always going to be difficult because many
asylum seekers [lack] do not provide coherent histories or documentary
evidence of their situations. An example of the issues this raises
is that of age determination. As people often [have] offer no
documentary evidence of dates of birth and the path to support
for asylum seekers is different if they are children, age is often
a contentious issue. Kent is involved in a pilot project with
the Immigration Service looking at a standardised approach to
age determination. However, there is currently little consistency
in this area nationally at the moment but as Chair of the Association
of Directors Task Force on Asylum matters, we are working with
Government Departments to bring a degree of clarity to this area.
It is clear from my own experience that many youngsters arriving
in the UK have already been living in the European Union for some
considerable time (examples of up to three years). This must give
us messages about how the whole system is working.
Another issue is that there appears to be a
two tier approach to asylum applications at the present time.
My colleagues in dispersal areas tell me that some more recent
asylum seekers have received a decision even prior to dispersal
and that this decision can be either a rejection of the claim
or Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR). However, Kent supports a
number of asylum seekers under interim arrangements as do many
other authorities and the decisions on this backlog have been
slow. In September 2000 KCC supported 7,000 single adults and
families under interim arrangements and we continue to support
3,500 single adults and families. This backlog was due to become
supported by NASS in April 2002 but this date was extended to
April 2004 in February 2002. Clearly this gave very little notice
to enable us to extend our staffing and operational arrangements.
It is my understanding that NASS are continuing to investigate
the possibility of picking up the support for these asylum seekers
before the due date. However, this will mean complex arrangements
with a large number of small providers and the local authorities
continue to suggest that a more humane approach to the problems
posed by these individuals would be to employ resources in resolving
their asylum claim quickly. These people have, after all, been
in the UK since before 17 April 2000. The establishment of NASS
has led to quicker decision making for newly arrived applicants
but this appears to be to the detriment of existing asylum seekers
and local authorities. The backlog also has an impact on unaccompanied
minors, both as children and as they turn 18 and this uncertainty
on asylum status can hinder care planning for the young person.
I have consulted with colleagues in dispersal
areas who express concern that the reason for asylum decisions
is not always clear and transparent. They cite instances of members
of the same family being given different decisions and there is
a concern that an over-reliance on a blanket approach to certain
countries may result in individual circumstances being ignored.
They cite in this regard decisions now being made on nationals
of Afghanistan, even though some areas of that country remain
unsafe. However, it is clear that where people are not at threat
in returning to their country of origin, fast track decisions
should be made.
When asylum seekers are refused asylum and denied
support, many go missing and a better tracking system should be
in place. Many would be in country applicants find it hard to
get to Croydon and a regional ability to claim asylum might result
in fewer people becoming untraceable. I am concerned at the impact
of this untraced group on local communities and their services.
It seems important that an element of fairness is observed in
ensuring equality of access to make asylum claims. Since Section
55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into
effect asylum seekers no longer have the automatic right to enter
emergency accommodation and apply for longer term NASS support.
Currently, the screening for this entitlement only takes place
in Croydon and Liverpool and this seriously disadvantages asylum
seekers in making claims from other geographic areas.
The Immigration Service is working hard to meet
their targets of two months for an initial decision. There is
some worry in dispersal areas where Solicitors are scarce that
asylum seekers only have two weeks to send their SEF form back
to the Immigration Service and many asylum seekers have been refused
asylum in the first instance because of a failure to complete
the form in time. Unless secured, of course, individuals will
disappear into the country if they believe that they have received
a negative decision.
3. How adequately is support provided to asylum
seekers by the National Asylum Support Service?
NASS began to disperse people from the South
East in 2000. As Strategic Director of Social Services in Kent,
I have had first hand experience of their work in Gateway authorities.
I have also consulted colleagues in dispersal areas on this question.
NASS are a relatively new public body performing a unique role
within the UK. It is, therefore, not surprising that there have
been some initial difficulties and miscommunications particularly
when one considers the volumes of people they have had to support.
Many of my colleagues have said that NASS has not been good at
working in partnership with the relevant local authorities and
I have had an instance of this in my own County. NASS failed to
consult the relevant authorities in relation to the purchase of
the Coniston Hotel in Sittingbourne. I wrote to NASS seeking assurances
of their intentions and did not receive a reply. As local agencies
were not consulted we could not inform them as to the suitability
or otherwise of the local support and infrastructure until the
plan became public. We were then unable to reassure the local
population with well thought out plans that minimised the impact
on their services. We have learnt in working with asylum seekers
in Kent that it is important to consider local impacts in order
to ensure that public disorder issues are limited. This lessens
the effects of harassment on the asylum seekers themselves.
Lack of local knowledge also leads NASS to an
over reliance on private and voluntary providers sub-contracted
by the Agency. The providers are often left to liaise with local
authorities and press etc. and a more robust partnership approach
on their part would lead to better services. Unfortunately there
is evidence that market forces have led private providers to make
placements in regeneration areas and in low quality housing. Some
of the emergency accommodation contracted by NASS in dispersal
areas has been of poor quality and the emphasis has been on accommodation
rather than the other support networks, which go to make a viable
placement. Some asylum seekers have been dispersed away from people
speaking their language. There have been instances in Wales for
example where people have been placed 50 miles away from the next
nearest speaker of their language. Kent County Council had to
develop a sophisticated network of interpreters to assist in supporting
asylum seekers. A lack of these facilities causes problems in
accessing basic services such as healthcare.
There have also been instances of asylum seekers
being dispersed in the middle of complex health care needs being
met and without the relevant receiving authority being made aware
of such medical/health needs prior to dispersal. In Kent to ensure
a degree of continuity of medical services, salaried GPs were
employed which, coupled with good interpreting services, has helped
create a more effective process. I would like to see this developed
nationally within the Personal Medical Services Development within
the context of Primary Health Care Trusts. There are good examples
in London and various parts of the country.
It is also worth mentioning that where there
are concentrations of asylum seekers and refugees the impact on
the local education economy can be severe and their resources
stretched. It is always a year behind and this has presented difficulties
in areas where concentrations have built up quickly. The separate
funding streams for the support of asylum seekers and the provision
of statutory services to them do not lend themselves to coherent
or rational planning. I would say that any Grant regime whether
it is hypothecated directly from the Home Office or from other
spending departments should have greater stability and at least
three year cycles. This is after all a partnership between Central
and Local Government. Greater stability adds to credibility and
promotes efficiency to the system. The database being developed
for unaccompanied minors to promote a more efficient monitoring
system nationally is a commendable development, given that one
of the most difficult issues is tracking a highly mobile population.
On another matter, there have been some difficulties
with NASS failing to inform local authorities in an appropriate
and timely manner of the likely impact of sections 54, 55 and
57 of the NIA Act on requests for their services. Guidance on
these matters went out in mid-December for implementation by local
authorities on 8 January. It was not a surprise to us that these
provisions became subject to an early judicial review as the implementation
was insufficiently planned. Many of the above difficulties can
be said to be failures of communication and it is hoped that regionalising
NASS services will lead to the agency being more responsive both
to the needs of the asylum seekers and the sensitivities of local
populations. NASS is a major provider of services and as such
needs to have standards and processes that are consistent with
partner agencies in many localities. In my view the current centralised
structure has been a bar to effective partnerships.
A further difficulty that has arisen is the
administration of the Home Office Grant to local authorities by
NASS. The rules by which the Home Office Grant can be claimed
have changed every year since the Home Office took over the administration.
Often the changes are only communicated to us in the middle of
the relevant financial year. This inevitably leads to concerns
about expenditure as rule changes may mean that expenditure that
was legitimate in one financial year is unable to be claimed in
the next. The Grant reclaim rules often come out with insufficient
consultation with the local authorities and are often at odds
with both the operational needs of local authorities and the guidance
given to local authorities by the Department of Health in relation
to the care of asylum seekers.
A recent example of this was the plan to withdraw
the Grant from young people under the age of 18 once they had
received an asylum decision. Operationally this decision could
have meant that young people as young as 16 were left unsupported
within a very few weeks of arriving in England. This would clearly
be unacceptable in the terms of the care of the young people and
would have lead to additional costs being incurred by the local
authorities. It may also further encourage youngsters to just
disappear into the black economy and in that sense they would
potentially be placed at risk.
Safe Case Transfer and Child Protection:
Given the numbers of asylum seekers that have
been the responsibility of the South East authorities particularly
London, Kent and West Sussex, an inevitable consequence has been
the relocation of asylum seekers in various parts of the country.
This has normally been through third party providers and has not
been without problems both with regard to integration into the
local communities and the consequences for the respective local
authorities in whose area the asylum seekers have been placed.
As a means of protecting young people under the age of 18 and
in an attempt to establish better partnerships across the country
with Local Government, Kent has attempted to develop what is called
"Safe Case Transfer". The aim of which would be to transfer
the Corporate Parenting responsibilities in a systematic way following
comprehensive assessment. Some of the most recent changes in both
Grant and Department of Health guidance has the potential of corrupting
this aspiration. Mainly to do with the long-term financial consequences
that may fall on Local Government through changes in Grant regime
rules. A further issue which has been of concern, particularly
in the light of Climbie Report, has been the risks associated
with unaccompanied minors. In Kent it has been apparent over the
years that we have examples of youngsters who have come into the
country with no history who later have been abusers of other children.
Conversely we have had youngsters who have been here for sexual
or commercial exploitation. My strong recommendations to the Immigration
Service and NASS has been to have a multi-disciplinary approach
to child protection training for those two services that would
comply with both national guidance from the DoH and the Area Child
Protection Committees nationally.
NASS retain responsibility for all newly arrived
single adults and families. I am concerned that despite much correspondence
on my part about this issue, NASS have still not published guidance
given to their staff about child protection issues. To reinforce
the points earlier, many families coming into the country do not
have a parental relationship with the children in their care or
indeed may not be relatives of any kind. NASS should work hard
to have protocols in place with the local authorities in all the
areas in which they work to ensure that any concerns are picked
up speedily and appropriately. This should apply to induction
areas as well as dispersal areas.
Asylum seekers with special needs:
The Westminster Judgement has meant that asylum
seekers with special needs have become the responsibility of the
local authority at point of entry. This has led to increased expenditure
on community care needs in some local authorities. The local authorities
have also had to pay for accommodation and support for the asylum
seeker as well as meeting their basic community care need. In
some cases, the cost of accommodation and support greatly exceeds
the cost of the package of care. Work needs to be undertaken nationally
to scope the cost of this extra duty to local authorities.
4. How appropriately is detention used in
respect of asylum seekers?
It is important that a decision to detain an
asylum seeker should lead to a rapid decision being made about
the outcome of their asylum claim. Obviously, many detained asylum
seekers are never in receipt of local authority services as they
are detained at the beginning of the asylum process. I think it
is important that when people are detained at the end of the asylum
process every effort is made to ensure a short period of detention.
It is obvious at the moment that the lack of detention places
for families and single adults is an influence on the limited
number of removals currently happening. Many single people disappear
on merely being sent removals directions and this leads to problems
of illegal working, potential commercial or sexual exploitation
and the potential of overcrowding the accommodation of other asylum
seekers. It seems improbable that the removals process will ever
work efficiently without some element of detention towards the
end of that process. However, for everyone's sake including cost
to the public purse, that should be time limited. There are also
problems when people have been detained. For example, we have
had a number of cases where Immigration have lost or failed to
prepare paperwork and detainees have been released to our care
again. This is distressing to the individuals and families and
is difficult operationally for us to provide new accommodation
at short notice. It also must increase the risk of asylum seekers
absconding.
Many of the families we support in Kent have
now lived there for some years and obviously removals often take
place suddenly. There have been instances of children in primary
school being deprived of their best friend without warning and
a chance to say goodbye leading in some cases to a referral to
the school psychological service for the Kent child. I understand
that there is provision for letters etc to be sent out in the
seven days and I feel this could be encouraged in the case of
children within families to try to minimise the level of childhood
distress.
5. What will be the effects on the management
of asylum applications of changes made in the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act 2002 and the Prime Minister's pledge to halve the
number of asylum seekers by September 2003?
Induction, accommodation, removals and reporting
centres
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
introduced many provisions, which will be of value in managing
asylum applications. Dover hosted the first pilot for induction
centres. Induction centres aim to inform people of their rights
and responsibilities in seeking asylum in the UK. The pilot has
also introduced health screening for asylum seekers, which is
very helpful in allaying public fears about the spread of disease.
The induction centre has proved useful in informing asylum seekers
and in occupying them usefully in their first few days in the
country when they are possibly disorientated and unable to understand
local culture and so most likely to cause unwitting offence. I
also hope that this process will enable asylum claimants to have
access to competent and timely legal advice which will aid the
management of individual cases.
There is concern that the establishment of large
accommodation centres will destabilise local populations and fail
to meet the integration needs of those asylum seekers who gain
refugee status. It is to be hoped that stays in such centres will
be brief and that full attention will be paid to the needs of
children in them particularly with regard to child protection
issues.
It is important that asylum seekers are tracked
during their stay in the UK and I hope that removals and reporting
centres will help in this process.
Juxtaposed controls
The use of juxtaposed controls at Coquelles
and Paris, Gare du Nord, has helped to reduce the number of asylum
claims in Kent and such arrangements in Calais will be welcome.
Section 54, 55 and 57 of the Act
I have mentioned the implementation of these
sections under sections 2 and 3. These sections are designed to
prevent benefit shopping, late asylum applications or lack of
co-operation at interview. Asylum seekers in these categories
may be denied support. This may lead to requests being made to
local authorities. Local authorities are excluded from offering
help under some legislation but these provisions have already
led to a judicial review. It is apparent from my comments throughout
this paper that these sections have already provided some challenges
to local authorities and I continue to be concerned that these
sections may lead either to an unacceptable level of destitution
or to the local authorities having to provide support to asylum
seekers in an ad hoc and unfunded manner. In particular the relationship
between Human Rights legislation, NASS support and asylum seekers
with community care type needs should be clarified.
As Strategic Director of Kent County Council,
I have been involved in asylum issues for some time and for the
last year, I have been leading a national ADSS Task Force on Asylum
issues. My evidence to this inquiry is therefore based upon my
experience in both these roles.
I believe that the ADSS Asylum Task Force has
demonstrated a commitment to government policies on asylum and
to the fair treatment of these people while they are in the UK.
The initiatives to date have been concentrated in work with unaccompanied
children where the Children Act 1989 has given me the necessary
statutory leverage to shift the national debate. Significant developments
towards a coherent national strategy have been made in the following
areas.
— Agreement for Joint Immigration Service/Social
Work Teams at ports and screening units to identify and protect
vulnerable children and safeguard children's resources from abuse
by adults.
— A safe case transfer scheme is being
piloted in two regions the uneven nature of demand in the South
East Care Market.
— Regional commissioning strategies
led by local authorities acting in partnership.
— Pilot schemes to increase the rate
of voluntary return for failed young asylum seekers and the planned
return of over 18s who have been in local authority care.
— The imminent development of a national
register of vulnerable young people from abroad to track their
movement in the UK and inform the relevant social services.
I believe that the wide spread acceptance of
these developments can offer a model for NASS to have more confidence
in a full partnership approach with local authorities in planning
services for all groups of asylum seekers.
Peter Gilroy
Strategic Director of Social Services—Kent
Chair—ADSS Aylum Task Force
7 May 2003
| 
