Home Affairs Committee

A. Executive Summary

1. Refugee Action’s submission to this inquiry on asylum uses learning from our 31 years’ experience of the asylum process. Our submission provides evidence-based recommendations for how the asylum process could provide more sustainable outcomes for asylum seekers, with positive knock-on effects for cost and for public confidence. In particular we focus on three areas where we would be keen to supplement this submission with oral evidence:

• — asylum support: we have conducted new research which shows how the current asylum support system fails to meet peoples’ essential living needs and works against them making the best possible asylum claim;
• — destitution: new evidence from our work with women refused asylum seekers shows how Home Office policies that create destitution prevent people engaging properly with the asylum process; and
• — assisted voluntary return (AVR): evidence from our work operating the UK’s AVR scheme highlights the elements of the asylum process which work against the uptake of AVR by refused asylum seekers.

B. Introduction to Refugee Action

2. Refugee Action is an independent, national charity working to enable refugees to build new lives in the UK. We provide practical support for newly arrived asylum seekers as well as a long-term commitment to their settlement. Through our ‘One Stop Service’, Gateway Protection Programme and Choices Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Service, the Home Office funds us to give confidential, independent and non-directive advice and information to asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants on a breadth of topics. We also offer support through a range of independently funded projects.153

C. Asylum support

3. Our evidence on asylum support is based on our experience of providing almost 10,000 asylum advice sessions every year across the country. It demonstrates that the asylum support system is not fit for purpose, and does not comply with the Government’s obligations to meet the essential living needs of asylum applicants.

Section 95

4. The support for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute is known as section 95, and was originally set at a reduced rate of 70% of Income Support. Since its introduction, it has been steadily creeping below this rate and even further below the poverty line. A single adult on asylum support now receives £36.62—just over 50% of Income Support and only £5.23 per day.154 A couple with one child aged 16 receives 64% of Income Support, and a lone parent with a 16 year old child receives only 62%.

Section 4

5. Section 4 is the support provided to destitute refused asylum seekers. Under section 4, people can access basic accommodation and cashless financial support provided through an Azure card. People only qualify for it if they cooperate with voluntary return, or can prove that they are unable to leave the UK through no fault of their own.

6. A single adult on section 4 receives £35.39 per week, or £5 per day, which constitutes less than 50% of Income Support. A lone parent with a baby under the age of one receives only 59% of Income Support and a pregnant woman receives just 54%.

Impact of poverty on asylum seeking families155

7. In late 2012, Refugee Action conducted interviews to establish what asylum seekers living on section 95 and section 4 were able to buy with their weekly allowance. We spoke to 14 people on section 95 and 11 people on section 4.

Asylum support fails to meet the essential living needs of asylum seekers

8. The majority of our respondents struggled to feed themselves and their children, and could not afford essential items including clothes, shoes, or medicine. Almost 50% of respondents on section 95 reported that they had missed a meal and the same number had been unable to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. Almost 40% reported that they could not buy enough food to feed themselves and their dependents. 93% stated that they did not have enough money to buy clothes, suggesting that people are sacrificing warmth for food.

9. All of the people on section 4 that we spoke to said that they do not have sufficient money to buy enough food to feed themselves and their dependents. 82% reported that they had been unable to buy fresh fruit and vegetables and over 90% had missed a meal altogether. All of them reported that they could not buy clothes, non-prescription medication, or telephone credit.

10. The Azure card compounds the impoverishment of asylum seekers as it can only be used in a limited number of designated retailers, which are often not the cheapest, and single people cannot carry over more than £5 per week in order to save for bulk or more substantial items.156 Our clients tell us that the card makes it harder to get value for money, and that supermarkets sometimes refuse the purchase of certain items that they do not consider to be ‘essential’. 157 This has included socks, toiletries, orange juice and children’s clothing.

Asylum support fails to enable parents to care appropriately for their children

11. Two thirds of the lone parent respondents on section 95 reported that they could not buy non-prescription medication, or baby products such as nappies, formula milk or bottles. Remarkably, all of the lone parents on section 4 that we interviewed reported that they could not afford enough food to feed themselves and their children and nor could they afford fresh fruit and vegetables. They all reported that they could not buy items for their children’s education and wellbeing, such as toys, books or stationary, and half of them reported that they could not buy baby products. All of the parents on section 4 reported a negative impact on their child’s health as a result of the level of support.

Asylum support leaves people socially isolated and without information and advice

12. Communication and transport are very difficult for people on asylum support. As a direct result of the low levels of support, 86% of those that we consulted on section 95 could not afford public transport to travel to do their shopping. 79% could not afford to buy telephone credit and 71% reported difficulty consulting their legal representative. 10 of the 14 people on section 95 felt that the level of support impacts on their ability to pursue their asylum claim. Over 70% were unable to travel to visit friends and family, and many reported feeling isolated and depressed due to a lack of money for social activities.

13. For those on section 4, the use of public transport for shopping, attending GP appointments, visiting friends or an advice agency is impossible as they have no access to cash. These people either walk long distances or do not travel at all.

Asylum support levels contribute to poor physical and mental health outcomes

14. With the exception of three people, none of those we spoke to believed that the level of support they received allows them to maintain good health. In 2011, 206 individuals raised issues related to section 4 and health problems in our One Stop casework sessions or were identified by our staff as having a physical or mental health problem.

Asylum support undermines the Home Office’s immigration objectives

15. Our evidence suggests that the level of section 4 hinders the achievement of Home Office objectives in relation to people at the end of the asylum process. It is extremely hard to take the steps required to overcome any obstacles to leaving the UK or to pursue a further claim for status, if you live in a state of destitution or poverty. 64% of our section 4 respondents felt that the level of support impacts on their ability to pursue their asylum claim.

16. There is no evidence to suggest that increased support rates would attract greater numbers of asylum seekers. The Home Office’s own research into why people claim asylum in the UK showed that asylum seekers have limited control over their final destination and know little about UK asylum procedures, entitlements to benefits, the availability of work, or how UK policies compare to those of other EU countries.158

Reforming asylum support will not add to the ‘asylum bill’

17. There would be a cost implication to the Home Office associated with increasing asylum support rates. However any costs incurred could be offset by simplifying the asylum support system and replacing the current two-tier bureaucratic arrangement with one support stream—section 95—that harmonises the levels and type of support, and removes the need for transfers between different support streams.

D. Destitution

18. The extent of asylum destitution is hard to measure but we know it is an enormous problem for our clients. In 2012, 23% of our casework sessions (2,091) included advice about destitution. People find themselves destitute for a variety of reasons, but for most it occurs following the final refusal of their asylum claim and the withdrawal of support after 21 days.159

19. Our Fresh Start project works with destitute women refused asylum seekers in the East Midlands, providing time-limited accommodation and support to help them re-engage with the asylum process and achieve a sustainable outcome. Working closely with women to review their experience of the asylum process has revealed how confused, ill-informed and disempowered most have been. In several instances it is clear that original asylum applications might have been strengthened by the inclusion of available information and evidence that could have been provided if the women had been better informed or if their advisers had been more accessible or competent. This not only badly impacted upon the women directly in terms of their personal wellbeing and safety but also upon the asylum determination and support systems.160

20. Research has shown that the quality of asylum decisions—particularly concerning women’s asylum claims and in relation to credibility—fails to meet the standards required to ensure protection for all those who deserve it.161 It is therefore unsurprising that people, like the women at the Fresh Start house, choose destitution over return to persecution or death, even though it can demand complex survival strategies which leave them vulnerable and at risk. One of our clients, a lone parent with physical and mental health problems explained that “I experienced domestic violence from my ex-partner because he knew I was destitute. When I borrowed money, people will charge me interest if I don’t pay on time. It was very hard and stressful.”

21. Eight of the Fresh Start women have been helped to successfully re-access accommodation and support whilst they wait to hear the outcome of legal representations and asylum applications, and three, helped to locate and present fresh evidence, have been awarded status enabling them to stay in the UK. Their experience of forced destitution had prevented them from engaging with the asylum process—the respite from this destitution afforded by Fresh Start enabled them to find a more sustainable outcome to their situation.

Administrative delay in the provision of support

22. The second most common cause of destitution is administrative delay, as people wait for a decision on their support application, or for allocation and dispersal to accommodation once approved. Most often this delay is the result of inactivity by the Home Office or further requests for information which are unreasonable or difficult for the applicant to evidence.162

23. In early 2012, Refugee Action intervened in a judicial review of the Home Office’s policy of waiting at least 15 days after receipt of a support application, before making a decision on that application if it was based on further submissions.163 At the time, Refugee Action was assisting people who had been waiting anything up to 137 calendar days for a support decision. The challenge was successful and the Home Office introduced new section 4 process guidance stating that no decision should be made later than 5 working days and applications by vulnerable individuals should be decided within 2 days.164 Unfortunately, we have not seen an improvement in decision-making and delays continue.

24. During a monitoring exercise between August and December 2012, Refugee Action assisted with approximately 230 applications for section 4 and approximately 100 applications for section 95. Of the 206 section 4 applications that we monitored, we found that, nationally, decisions were taking on average 16 calendar days from the date of application to decision, rising to 35 calendar days where the application was made because of further submissions. It is not unusual to see applicants waiting for over four weeks between support application and decision. Of the 206 section 4 applications, 50 people were already street homeless—and extremely vulnerable—at the point of application.

E. Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR)

25. Refugee Action has been advising people about AVR for 12 years and since 2011 has been operating the UK’s AVR scheme.165 Refugee Action’s approach is to support people to make informed choices about their options and to facilitate appropriate, successful and sustainable returns.

26. The Home Office has been very clear that its priority with AVR is to increase the number of people leaving the UK. Despite this it consistently fails to recognise or respond to the many barriers within the asylum process that prevent people taking-up AVR. In our view, unless the Home Office tackles these underlying issues, the increase in AVR numbers to which it has committed will not be achieved.

27. Too often the Home Office examines AVR in isolation and treats it as a panacea for failures in asylum decision-making and failing policies around destitution and detention. Refugee Action believes it is unhelpful and unrealistic to expect people to ‘solve’ the problems of the asylum process by agreeing to leave the UK speedily and voluntarily when the rest of their experience of the asylum process in the UK has been chaotic, contradictory and has eroded their trust in the Home Office as a credible source of information.166

28. In our AVR casework we see how people’s lack of understanding about the asylum process and the continued poor quality of asylum decision-making play themself out in reduced take-up of AVR. People continue to believe that their claim has not been properly heard, that they have a well-founded fear of persecution, and that they will eventually be granted leave to remain. For some this belief is well-founded, as Home Office asylum refusals continue to be successfully challenged even after cases have been designated for enforcement action. For example, the Family Returns Panel has reported that between March 2011 and March 2012 41% of the concluded cases that went through the family returns process were granted leave to remain in the UK.167 For AVR to be a suitable, sustainable option, the Home Office has to make sure that asylum decision-making is credible.

29. Our work on AVR also demonstrates how the lack of proactive advice and support experienced by most people throughout the asylum process results in low AVR take-up by refused asylum seekers. We typically see people who did not properly understand the asylum process when their claim was being heard and did not receive adequate advice to help them make the best possible claim or prepare for the possible outcomes. When their asylum claim was refused, many lost their asylum support and were left destitute 21 days later, leaving them entirely consumed in meeting daily survival needs rather than being able to consider their long-term future. In our view discussion of AVR needs to start from an early point in the asylum process, needs to be delivered by a trusted source and be within a context that has meaning for the individuals concerned—for example through Refugee Action’s key worker model.168

30. As well as being undermined by a fundamental lack of advice, poor asylum decision-making and the relentless nature of destitution, there are also elements of the current AVR programme which mitigate against AVR take-up. These include:

(a) There are very few clear, published Home Office policies and procedures governing eligibility to AVR programmes and the entitlements that derive from them. This makes it difficult to properly advise people about AVR and for people to make decisions about whether AVR might be a suitable option for them.

(b) Some of the Home Office’s existing procedures, practices and policies work against AVR. For example, competing target priorities and internal communication break-downs within the Home Office continue to mean that people who want to return through an AVR programme are forcibly removed, with an increased cost to the taxpayer for every removal, frequently of several thousands of pounds.169

(c) AVR programmes are not always flexible or responsive enough to meet the needs of people in vulnerable situations. Particular groups of concern to Refugee Action include children, people with physical and/or mental health difficulties, torture survivors, trafficking survivors, people in detention and people from certain countries, for example with no viable route of return, who have no realistic expectation of acquiring travel documents, or who are stateless.

(d) UK policy makers have no agreed definition of what constitutes a sustainable AVR. This means opportunities to fund and structure the AVR programme in ways that are most likely to achieve sustainability of return continue to be missed. In our experience, without a focus on sustainability AVR is unlikely to break the cycle of re-migration.

F. Recommendations

31. Refugee Action is pleased to have had the opportunity to provide information to the Committee’s inquiry on asylum and would be happy to provide further oral evidence, especially on asylum support, destitution and AVR. Please contact Sile Reynolds, Policy and Information Manager, siler@refugee-action.org.uk

32. In brief a list of our headline recommendations include:

Asylum support

A. The Home Office should set asylum support levels at a rate of at least 70% of Income Support, and provide it as cash. Annual increments to support rates should be linked to those for Income Support or its equivalent.

B. The Home Office should abolish section 4 and provide all asylum support under section 95, as cash, to avoid disruption, destitution and bureaucratic waste.

C. The Home Office should focus on delivering better and faster support decisions so as to reduce administrative destitution and the number of successful appeals at the Asylum Support Tribunal.

D. The Home Office should grant permission to work to asylum seekers who have been waiting for six months or more for an initial decision or who have been refused asylum, but cannot be removed through no fault of their own.

Destitution

E. The Home Office should focus on raising the quality of asylum decision making so as to reduce the likelihood of people with ongoing protection needs ending up destitute at the end of the process.

F. The government should broaden the use of Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave so that those with ongoing fears that do not meet the criteria for refugee status, are able to access rights, support and services while they wait for the situation to improve.

G. The Home Office should provide end to end financial support and accommodation to all those who need it, until they are granted status or return to their country of origin. Attempting to coerce people to return voluntarily by threatening destitution is both inhumane and ineffective.

AVR

H. UK policy makers should work with stakeholders to agree a definition of what constitutes a sustainable AVR. This understanding should be used to fund and structure the UK’s AVR programme going forward.

I. The asylum process should be analysed through the sphere of AVR to identify and address elements that mitigate against refused asylum seekers taking up AVR.

J. Discussion about AVR needs to start from an early point in the asylum process, needs to be delivered by a trusted source and be within a context that has meaning for the individuals concerned—for example through Refugee Action’s key worker model.

K. The current AVR programme should be based on clear, published policies that are sufficiently tailored to meet the needs of people in vulnerable situations.

Appendix

CASE STUDIES AND RESEARCH QUOTES TO SUPPLEMENT REFUGEE ACTION’S RESPONSE TO THE HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY ON ASYLUM

Section 95: fails to meet essential living needs

Research quotes:

One of our clients stated: “My daughter gets upset when she wants a toy that other children have but I cannot afford to buy toys. Sometimes my daughter will ask me “why this person have that I don’t have” and I have to put the child down by saying we do not have the same thing. Last month there was a school trip that they want me to pay for, but I couldn’t pay for it and as a result my daughter didn’t go to the trip.”

Another client explained that “last week, my mum was not feeling well and we took her to the hospital. The hospital was far and we did not have enough money to pay for our transport to get back to our house. At the end we managed to get bus home, but we had no money left for food.”

Section 4: a cashless support system for refused asylum seekers

Research quotes:

One of our pregnant clients explained that “I am 7 months pregnant and I receive the same amount as a single person receives. I couldn’t follow all the medical checks due to not having enough money to travel.”

Another explained that “I know I should eat healthy food because I am pregnant, fresh fruit and vegetables, but I cannot afford that so I eat what I can afford even if it is not healthy.”

One of our clients with severe back problems explained that “I have got a backpain, because I cannot afford to pay buses, I have to walk everywhere and it makes me upset and mentally sick. I cannot afford to buy the belt for my backpain…. I am taking tablet for depression caused by being without support, not being able to talk to my family.”

Another client explained “I’ve got pneumonia and depression. The [Azure card] I am getting is frustrating me because I have to buy certain things in supermarket. I have to walk everywhere with my children, even if it is raining, my physical and mental health is not improving at all.”

One woman who is the sole carer for her grandchild explained that “My grandchild is waiting for two months for uniform from city council. She has been unable to go to school because she doesn’t have uniform. But if we had money I could buy uniform and my grandchild could go to school. Now my grandchild is under depression because the school refused her to attend without uniform.”

One of our clients described her life on section 4 support: “Sometimes I really want to travel to see my friends but I don’t have money as I only get a voucher. I have to walk to go and see my doctor. I really wanted to buy nice things for my child but I cannot afford to buy anything, just some food. Can only go to my local store for food and this is still far to walk. I buy day by day as I don’t have money to go on the bus and I have to walk so i buy little by little.”

One lone parent explained that “my children [all under 7] have to walk everywhere, in this cold, they are always sick and complaining. I cannot afford all they need. My child is sick but I was unable to take him to GP as no bus ticket.”

Case study 1: Ye Xin170

Ye Xin is in receipt of section 4 support and has a young child who is experiencing regular seizures at the moment. On a couple of occasions, Ye Xin took her to Accident and Emergency late at night as she had become very concerned about the child’s health. The child was then assessed as being fine but the mother and child were forced to remain in A+E for the rest of the night as they had no cash to take a taxi or bus home. They needed to wait till morning when they could phone a friend who could give them a lift home.

Case study 2: Rose

Rose is a single woman who is supported under section 4 as a result of presenting further submissions. She is also in the late stages of pregnancy. Rose is accommodated in an area where there are none of the supermarkets in which the Azure card can be used. The nearest participating supermarket is two miles from Rose’s home. Rose lives on top of a very steep hill and, with no cash for transport and no means to buy a bus ticket, she is completely isolated. Rose has a volunteer mentor who takes her to the supermarket in her car. However, if the mentor isn’t available Rose is not physically capable of making the journey to the shops in which she could use the card. This situation was particularly bad during winter when ice on the pavement made it too dangerous for Rose to attempt to navigate the steep hill by foot.

Case study 3: Noor

Noor was recently dispersed with her two children—a two-year old and a child under the age of one, who was born very recently. Noor’s son, who is only a couple of months old, has a heart murmur and she needs to attend regular appointments at the hospital. Noor must walk with both her children in order to attend these appointments. In the past, the British Red Cross has helped Noor to cover the cost of transport to the hospital but even to get to BRC or to Refugee Action, Noor must walk for 40 minutes.

Administrative delays in support decision making

Research quotes:

One of the clients who participated in our research in late 2012 had been waiting 32 days for a decision on his support application. This delay was partly caused by a request for further information about where he has lived and who has provided him with support since December 2008, despite UKBA policy only requiring address details relating to the last 6 months.171 Another client, who waited 28 days for a decision, was required to provide further information concerning his wife, who is not even in the UK. One young woman waited 50 days for a decision as her UKBA caseowner repeatedly requested information from her NASS-supported family explaining why they cannot stretch their limited support to cover her needs too.

Case study 4: The Hussaini family

Mr Hussaini applied for support on 13 July 2011 for himself and his pregnant wife. The fact of his wife’s pregnancy was made clear to the UKBA in correspondence and by supplying medical evidence. Refugee Action made nine attempts to get a decision but UKBA explained that the application was being reviewed by their medical advisor. UKBA requested further information regarding the pregnancy and the decision to grant support was not made until 30 August 2011—47 days after the application was made. It is not clear why a decision on section 4 was delayed by the need to obtain medical advice in respect of applications for support made on the basis of further submissions (rather than on medical grounds).

Case study 5: Bisirat

Bisirat was a mother of three young children, and she had just fled a situation of domestic violence. She presented further submissions and made a section 4 application, and social services agreed to support her in the interim. Bisirat was very worried that she would end up homeless as social services had informed her that her support would end in seven days. We had marked her support application as urgent due to deadline imposed by social services, but seven days later no decision had been received and social services threatened to evict Bisirat and her children that day. Refugee Action intervened and negotiated with social services for her stay for two more nights in anticipation of a decision from UKBA. Refugee Action also pursued the decision from UKBA, and two days later Bisirat was granted support. Bisirat had felt very stressed while waiting for a decision from UKBA, and was very scared that she and her children would end up homeless. The night before she received her grant of support, Bisirat went to her local church in a state of great distress at the prospect of becoming homeless. The church leader told her that he could not help her and, despairing of how she would care for her children, she began to feel sick, her temperature increased, she began to shake, and felt pain in her stomach. She called an ambulance who took her to the hospital, while the children were sent to a foster care home for the night.

Case study 6: Mr and Mrs Ahmed

The Ahmed family were street homeless and had a 6 week old baby. Social services insisted that they apply for section 4 support but agreed to support them in the interim. They applied for section 4 in early August and UKBA responded requesting further information regarding destitution which the family duly sent. UKBA later sent a letter refusing the application on the basis that the family had failed to submit the requested information. The family appealed in October and on the same day, UKBA withdrew the decision to refuse support as they had now received the information. Four weeks later, the family were still waiting for a decision from UKBA. During this period of delay, the family were very stressed because social services were putting pressure on them to resolve their situation and Mr Ahmed was afraid they would be made homeless. The delay caused Mrs Ahmed great distress as she was also struggling to cope with the new baby.

Over one month from the date of application, UKBA finally wrote to the family refusing support on the basis that the child no longer constitutes a physical impediment to travel. The family are still supported by social services but the family do not know how long this will last.

Refugee Action

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013