Home Affairs Committee
1. Executive summary
1.1 State provision in the spheres of general support, access to legal help, language tuition and financial support for asylum seekers has diminished and needs boosting.
1.2 The loss of public sector involvement in the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers has resulted in a less thorough induction process, much less face to face contact between providers and clients and a reduced ability to support new arrivals trying to settle into their new environment, at least in the smaller dispersal locations. Asylum seekers take longer to adapt and find their way around than was the case before COMPASS.
1.3 Gaps in the local infrastructure of dispersal locations disadvantage the asylum seekers housed there. The distance to the nearest reporting/interview centre may also present problems.
1.4 Initial Accommodation Centres are poorly equipped to offer asylum seekers opportunities for acclimatisation and should address this deficit.
1.5 Provision of financial support under ss.4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires thorough review: rates have remained unchanged for two years instead of keeping pace with inflation and the s.4 “Azure Card” payment arrangements undermine budgeting and efficient shopping, tend to infantilise and embarrass the cardholders and suffer technical problems. Subsisting on s.95 support for more than a few weeks or on s.4 support damages self-esteem and all too often fails to prevent destitution.
2.0 Who we are
2.1 St Augustine’s Centre, Halifax, West Yorkshire HX1 5PG (Registered Charity No. 1131784) responds to the needs of marginalised and vulnerable people, including asylum seekers and refugees, living in the extremes of poverty. The local community has a long history of disadvantage and deprivation: St. Augustine’s parish is in the 1% most deprived parishes in the country, with high-density, low-quality housing, a transient population, language and cultural barriers, low skill levels, poor health and few job opportunities.
2.2 The Centre has welcomed refugees and asylum seekers since Halifax became a dispersal town some 13 years ago and this memorandum is informed by the experience the Centre’s paid staff and volunteers have acquired in helping this group of service users both generally and through its Immigration Support Calderdale arm which is OISC registered.
2.3 The Centre’s service users include:
- — asylum applicants awaiting a decision;
- — successful asylum seekers;
- — refused asylum seekers receiving s.4 support; and
- — refused asylum seekers denied s.4 support.
3.0 Submissions for the Committee’s attention
3.1 Gaps in local infrastructure
In contrast to cities such as Leeds and Manchester, the Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale and its main urban centre Halifax are poorly equipped to offer the support needed by asylum seekers.
3.1.1 In 2012, Calderdale Asylum Support Team (CASS), based in Halifax and part of the Yorkshire and Humberside Public Sector Group, was disbanded following the award to G4S by UKBA of the contract for housing asylum seekers and settling them into Calderdale with a number of consequences disadvantageous to asylum seekers dispersed to Calderdale:
- — Neither G4S nor its sub-contractor Cascade Homes are based in Calderdale. They are unfamiliar with local services, amenities and transport so guidance on these is inadequate. Contact with their service users is largely by telephone which many asylum seekers experience as a difficult and unsatisfactory mode of communication because of their lack of English or limited English.
- — The access to translation services and interpreters offered through CASS ceased and has not been replaced.
- — Instead of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week access to a local authority based team of 12 staff not just familiar with the asylum process but also embedded in the local authority network, asylum seekers now depend on our own Centre for their introduction to Calderdale and integration with its existing residents, entailing a reduction in access potential of at least 15 hours per week and more variation in the capacity to meet needs, including a reduction in the ability to draw on council services.
3.1.2 Only one firm of solicitors in Calderdale can offer legally aided help with asylum matters. Our Centre is registered with the Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner but is restricted to giving Level I advice. Very little asylum work can be done at this level. We understand that an outreach service is to be offered by Kirklees Law Centre which has its base in Dewsbury but details are not yet available.
3.1.3 The distance to the nearest Home Office reporting centre, situated in Leeds, is 14 miles. Journeys there by bus are hard to manage for adult asylum seekers accompanied by young children or having to complete the return journey within school hours. On arrival at Waterside Court, asylum seekers are expected to wait outside the building, whatever their circumstances or the prevailing weather.
3.2 Angel Lodge Initial Accommodation Centre, Wakefield
3.2.1 The Initial Accommodation Centre (IAC) for the majority of asylum seekers who are eventually housed in Calderdale is Angel Lodge in Wakefield which opened on 15th October 2012 following its conversion from a training centre for prison officers for Wakefield Prison situated opposite the Centre.
3.2.2 Angel Lodge is a large, rather dour building with capacity to accommodate some 200 people. Asylum seekers typically stay 3–4 weeks before they are dispersed. There are few communal spaces or activities. Such activities as do take place are organised by third sector organisations. Residents are offered access to Refugee Council staff who, among other things, provide briefings on the dispersal towns/areas.
3.2.3 When we visited on 21st November 2012, we noted the absence of newspapers and periodicals, despite their potential for helping people acclimatise and improve their English. There was little for children to play with. We were informed that there was no formal schooling for children. Behind the reception counter was a clearly visible whiteboard detailing residents’ complaints matched to room numbers.
3.3 English language learning
3.3.1 Asylum seekers need the ability to communicate in English for everyday transactions and to be able to interact with health professionals, teachers, social workers and representatives of central and local government. Without an adequate level of English, they become isolated in the community and may attract criticism from established residents; there is also the cost in terms of time and money (for translation and interpreters) for the health and other government services which support them.
3.3.2 It is therefore regrettable that asylum seekers may not attend accredited ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes until they have been in the country for six months without a decision on their asylum application. At this point they become eligible for co-funded ESOL and will therefore have to pay 50% of the cost of the course. This is normally beyond their financial means.
3.3.3 Refused asylum seekers in receipt of financial support under the Immigration and Asylum Act s.4 cannot use their Azure card to pay for ESOL courses even if they could afford to use the card for this purpose.
3.3.4 While there is scope for third sector involvement which would increase access to ESOL, a cohesive and comprehensive framework of provision is difficult to develop.
3.3.5 We recognise that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government seeks to create such a framework and has launched a competition targeted at securing ESOL for adults who have no, or a very basic command of, English, live in areas with high levels of need for English language provision and are not eligible for mainstream ESOL support, as delivered via the Skills Funding Agency (therefore not in employment or actively seeking employment) but for the time being, the opportunity to study English is denied to many asylum seekers.
3.4 Benefits and associated financial matters
3.4.1 As will be known to the Committee, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute qualify for support under s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 from the time they arrive in the UK until they are granted refugee status. At this point they become eligible for mainstream benefits and are allowed to work. If they have children and are refused asylum, the family will remain entitled to s.95 support until they leave voluntarily or are forcibly removed.
3.4.2 Recipients of s.95 support have their accommodation, basic household equipment, utility bills and council tax paid for and receive cash payments for food, toiletries and clothing.
3.4.3 If their asylum claim is refused, asylum seekers may be entitled to support under s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 if they satisfy extra requirements over and above destitution. In general there has to be a temporary obstacle such as sickness or no viable route of return which prevents them from leaving the UK. Support covers designated accommodation and essential expenditure, paid for through a payment card, known as the ‘Azure Card’, which can only be used at designated retail outlets. The rate is lower than the s.95 rate. The amount permitted to be carried over from one week to the next is limited to £5.
3.4.4 Asylum support rates for applicants waiting for a decision on their asylum claim have not increased since April 2011 although the payments are for food, toiletries and clothing, the cost of which has risen, sometimes sharply, in the last two years. The Government has confirmed that it has no current plans to change the rates.
3.4.5 In our experience, the risk of asylum seekers becoming destitute most commonly materialises:
- — when they gain refugee status and transfer to mainstream support;
- — when they are denied financial support because of administrative delays and errors;
- — as a result of living on s.4 support; and
- — as a result of being deemed ineligible for any support at all.
3.4.6 When asylum seekers gain refugee status following a period of s.95 support, they are normally ill-prepared to meet the costs (of fuel, water etc.) which become their responsibility after a four week period of grace. They must also find new accommodation. As they have no reserves of clothing, household equipment etc, to rely on, it becomes impossible for them to meet their basic requirements: all their needs materialise at the same time.
3.4.7 For asylum seekers receiving s.4 support, the Azure payment card system prevents shopping around for the best value for their money. Some items (notably condoms) cannot be purchased at all with the card which also cannot be used on public transport or to make telephone calls. Although s.4 recipients should be housed within three miles of an affiliated supermarket, asylum seekers (often with young children) walk considerable distances in the course of a week. If, due to illness, a weekly allowance goes unspent, the allowance will be removed from the card. Not being able to carry over more than £5 per week means that saving up for expensive items becomes nigh impossible.
3.4.8 Our service users reported frequent technical faults with the Azure payment card. These cause embarrassment when the card is refused at check-outs and the inconvenience of repeat journeys.
3.4.9 Asylum seekers deemed ineligible to receive any state support are nevertheless often expected to report to the nearest Home Office Reporting Centre. As this is in Leeds, they must somehow find funds for public transport for the 28 mile round trips.
3.4.10 Asylum seekers are sometimes moved without explanation and with little notice. If relocated in a different town, such social relationships as they have managed to form are then disrupted and are hard to repair, due to their inability to pay for travel.
4.0 Recommendations we hope to see included in the Committee’s report
4.1 Local authorities for areas to which asylum seekers are dispersed should be notified prior to the latter’s arrival. They should be charged with a duty to oversee their relocation and their induction into the local community. Newly dispersed families should be provided with comprehensive, written information in a language which they understand about their rights and entitlements, as well as practical information about services in their areas and where to get support.
4.2 Local authorities should provide asylum seekers with free access to ESOL classes.
4.3 The costs of discharging the duties in 4.1 and 4.2 should be met by the Home Office.
4.4 Providers of s.4 and s.95 accommodation should be required to provide their service-users with a drop-in centre in the locality in which they are housed.
4.5 The regional allocation of contracts for legal aid in asylum cases should be in proportion to anticipated numbers of dispersed asylum seekers.
4.6 Initial Accommodation Centres should provide opportunities for educational development and access to national culture and news coverage.
4.7 Initial Accommodation Centres should safeguard the privacy of their asylum seekers residents.
4.8 The Government should abolish s.4 support and urgently implement a single cash-based support system for all asylum seekers in need of asylum support while they are in the UK.
4.9 Asylum support should be consistent with mainstream benefit rates paid for living expenses. Where accommodation includes utilities, which would normally be expected to be paid from living expenses, reflecting this in the payment rates would be fair but deductions should be reasonable and comparable to those made from housing benefit where gas, electricity and water bills are covered within rent payments.
4.10 Support payments should keep pace with inflation.
4.11 Permission to work should be granted to asylum seekers if their claim for asylum has not been concluded within six months.
4.12 Refused asylum seekers who cannot be returned to their country of origin should be permitted to work.
4.13 Asylum seekers should not be moved unnecessarily. If they must move, sufficient advance notice and support should be given to minimise the disruption to their social well-being and the education of their children.
4.14 Asylum seekers required to attend a Home Office Reporting Centre should not be required to fund the cost of travelling there, whatever their status.
4.15 Consideration should be given to permitting asylum seekers to report by electronic means from the locality in which they reside. A drop-in centre such as that mooted in 4.4 above might be used for this purpose.
In addition to the above, we draw the Committee’s attention to the January 2013 Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Asylum Support for Children and Young People by The Children’ Society. Much of what our service users tell us is reflected in the case studies and findings of the Report. Accordingly we strongly urge that the recommendations of the Report should be implemented.
St Augustine’s Centre
April 2013