Home Affairs Committee

1. Introduction

1.1 I am the Member of Parliament for Brent Central, representing one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in the UK. I am Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and I recently chaired the cross-party Parliamentary Inquiry into Asylum Support for Children and Young People421.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Britain can rightly be proud of its record in providing sanctuary for those seeking protection from war and persecution. However, this reputation is at risk if we fail to adequately support those who seek our protection. It is my belief that the current asylum support system is in urgent need of reform if it is to have regard to the safety and well-being of children and meet its obligations to promote children’s best interests.

2.2 The current levels of support fail to meet the basic living needs of asylum seeking families. I believe that the Government should up-rate support levels annually to reflect changes in the cost of living. However, there is no statutory duty on the Secretary of State to annually review asylum support rates and support levels have been effectively frozen since April 2011.

2.3 Cashless section 4 support, administered through the Azure card, causes further hardship for families. The restrictive nature of the card means that families are forced to travel long distances to do their essential shopping and are unable to take advantage of the best deals. It should be replaced with a single, cash-based system of support.

2.4 Many asylum seeking families report instances where their right to privacy has been ignored by some housing providers. This should cease immediately and measures should be put in place to ensure that this happens.

2.5 Some families in the asylum system are subject to numerous moves from one accommodation to another, often with little notice and with no knowledge of the area they are moving to. This is disruptive for families, especially those whose children are in education and are forced to continually move schools, and even worse for pregnant women where continuity of maternity care is affected.

3 Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.

3.1 According to evidence, the levels of financial support provided to asylum applicants do not meet essential living needs. The available data shows that a single adult requires an absolute minimum of 70% of income support in order to meet essential living costs422. However, when comparing the levels of individual mainstream benefits and equivalent levels of asylum support, in many cases the latter falls well short of the 70% marker423. For example, a single adult over 25 on mainstream income support received £71.00 per week during 2012/13. An equivalent single adult in receipt of section 95 support would have received £36.62 per week, or 52% of the mainstream benefit. For section 4 support, this falls to £35.39, or 50%. Additionally, while some levels of asylum support for children younger than 16 years of age are set between 81% and 89% of mainstream levels, when taken with the levels for adults, asylum seeking families receive around two thirds of the support that families in receipt of mainstream benefits get424.

The personal stories confirm the impact that the levels of support have on families. For example, one mother living on section 95 support has described her experiences: “I would buy one meal which I will share with my son. My son, is my priority, therefore I will provide his nutritional needs before my own and occasionally starving myself.”425

3.2 The financial problems are more acute for those on section 4 support. Under section 4, a child currently receives the same basic rates as adults do but much less than other children. This is highlighted through the differences in amounts payable to asylum seeking families and failed asylum seekers through a maternity grant to help with costs arising from the birth of a new baby. The maternity grant is worth £500 on Income Support, £300 on section 95 support, and £250 on section 4 asylum support. However, the costs of having a new baby are the same.

I believe that asylum support levels also provided with accommodation should be aligned with mainstream benefit rates paid for living expenses. Where the provided accommodation includes utilities, it is appropriate that there are relevant deductions to reflect this. However, these must be reasonable and rates of support should not fall below 70% of income support.

3.3 One of the issues relating to asylum support is that unlike mainstream social security benefits, there is no statutory duty on the Secretary of State to annually review and up-rate support levels. As a result, although the Secretary of State may not have made any decision on support levels, in effect they are frozen.

One change that should be considered is that support rates should be increased annually and at the very least in line with increases in income support. If this was implemented through the introduction of a statutory duty whereby the Secretary of State must annually lay a draft up-rating order before Parliament, this would improve Parliamentary scrutiny of the asylum support system.

3.4 The cashless Azure card causes further hardships for those in receipt of section 4 support. This card can only be used at a handful of selected stores, forcing some families to travel long distances to shop for essential items and preventing recipients from finding the best deals. The card cannot be used on public transport, making it hard for these families to attend doctor’s appointments. Only a very small amount of unspent money can be carried over at the end of the week, making it impossible to save for items such as a winter coat.

The cashless system of support is designed as a short-term system of support. However, more than half of those in receipt of section 4 support have been receiving this support for more than two years426. To ensure that no child is left destitute, cashless section 4 support should be abolished immediately and a single cash-based support system for all those in need of asylum support should be implemented in its place.

3.5 Aside from the financial impacts of the support system, the stories that shock the most are the examples of abject disregard for basic human dignity demonstrated by some housing providers. As chair of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Asylum Support for Children and Young People I heard numerous examples of individuals working on behalf of housing providers entering properties unannounced having provided no notice, frightening parents and their young children. The Government must ensure that the asylum seekers’ right to privacy is respected by housing providers.

3.6 Further housing issues occur as a result of the dispersal and accommodation policy. When housing contracts change, asylum seekers are often moved with little choice of end location and will little time to prepare. Each time a family moves, this can result in children changing schools, a new GP being found, and the need to become familiarised with a new, unfamiliar locale. This is often very stressful for the families and can result in gaps in care and education.

While most asylum seekers are moved one or two times, some families experience many more moves. For example, a mother and her daughter, who first arrived in the UK in 2007, have been moved a total of 11 times427. As a result, the daughter has changed schools several times. The Government must ensure that families are not moved unnecessarily and the number of moves should be kept to an absolute minimum. If it is necessary for a family to move, they should be given advance notice and support to minimise the disruption to family life.

3.7 Furthermore, special care should be given to pregnant women and new mothers in the asylum process428. Refugees and asylum seekers are an especially vulnerable group in relation to maternity care and pregnancy outcomes. However, many women experience multiple moves during pregnancy or immediately after birth. This leads to the loss of community ties, as well as breaks in maternity care when women are forced to change midwives and/or maternity units after being moved. Although improvements have been made, this is still inadequate. As mentioned in 3.6 above, moves often occur at short notice and with little opportunity for women to gain information about the areas they are moving to. Midwives are also not informed by immigration officials when women in their care are moved. The Government must recognise the complex needs of pregnant women seeking asylum and pregnant women should not be dispersed unless absolutely necessary.

4. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.

4.1 It is hard to know exactly how many asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers are destitute for a number of reasons. The Government argue that there is no need for any asylum seeker to be destitute as there is asylum support available429. However, as set out above in 3.1, the levels of asylum support are not generous and are set well below levels of income support. This leaves as many as 10,000 vulnerable children supported through the asylum system as potentially being forced in extreme poverty or destitution430.

4.2 There is some evidence available which points to the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum seekers. For example, the British Red Cross spend over £500,000 a year assisting asylum seekers who have become destitute. Across the entire asylum process, they estimate that they assist 10,000 cases a year431.

4.3 It is particularly hard to discover how many refused asylum seekers are destitute. Over 3,000 individuals are in receipt of section 4 asylum support, however, many refused asylum seekers may not wish to make themselves known to the authorities. As indicated by the long lengths of time that some people have been in receipt of section 4 support, many refused asylum seekers, while not qualifying for asylum, cannot return to their country of origin as it would not be safe for them to do so. Out of fear of being forced to return home, many refused asylum seekers may “go underground” and it is impossible to know the extent to which this occurs.

Sarah Teather MP
Member of Parliament for Brent Central

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013