Home Affairs Committee

1. About Barnardo’s

1.1 Barnardo’s is the UK’s largest children’s charity, with 800 services supporting over 200,000 children, young people and families every year. Our projects include counselling for children who have experienced sexual exploitation, fostering and adoption services, vocational training, disability inclusion groups, support for asylum seekers and services for young carers. Our purpose is to help the UK’s most vulnerable children and young people transform their lives and fulfil their potential.

1.2 This response is based on the views of our practitioners and experience of delivering services to children and young people in the asylum system and asylum-seeking families:

• — Barnardo’s has three trafficking services in London, Hampshire and Manchester and many of the young people involved receive support through the asylum system. In Manchester our practitioners work specifically with failed and destitute asylum seekers.
• — We run a specialist fostering service in the South East that provides family placements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and supports them through the asylum process.
• — We provide a range of services for families experiencing difficulties, including those in temporary accommodation, many of whom are involved in the asylum process.
• — In Bristol we run a specialist service providing advocacy and support for asylum-seeking families.

2. Executive summary

This written evidence specifically addresses two of the terms of reference: the system of support to asylum seekers and the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.

• — Asylum seekers receiving support under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should receive service charge deductions at the standard rate applied to those in the mainstream benefit system.
• — Families who have children after an asylum claim is refused should be supported under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act rather than the lower rates under Section 4 of the Act.
• — A system of financial support should be put in place for asylum-seeking families making the transition from NASS support to the mainstream system to ensure that they are adequately provided for in this period.
• — Permission to work should be granted to asylum-seeking parents and young adults if their claim for asylum has not been concluded within six months.
• — Asylum seekers should temporarily be granted permission to work if they are unable to be returned to their country of origin.
• — The training of social workers who are involved in age assessments must be improved.
• — The culture of disbelief around unaccompanied migrant children’s presented ages must be challenged and tackled.
• — There should be an independent, multi-agency panel approach to determining age assessments.
• — The Government should ensure that unaccompanied migrant children have access to free legal representation for all cases, including the most complex.
• — Asylum seekers in NASS accommodation have a right to live in adequate housing. Urgent action should be taken to ensure that this housing meets minimum standards to ensure that children are kept safe and that their welfare is promoted.
• — Asylum-seeking families with children should be allocated to accommodation which they can occupy for the duration of their asylum applications. If this is not possible, families should not be required to move distances which entails children changing schools and should be provided with information about their rights, entitlements and service provision in their new areas.
• — As the current decision-making process around asylum claims does not represent a durable status for children, this should be provided for all. This may include granting indefinite leave to remain to all unaccompanied migrant children, including trafficked children.
• — It is vital that all unaccompanied migrant children who are unable to return to their country of origin are granted indefinite leave to remain as it is completely unacceptable that the current system leaves them in destitution.

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

Financial support for asylum-seeking families

3.1 Our practitioners report that asylum-seeking families are not adequately supported financially and that the current support system does not meet their essential living needs. Under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, asylum seekers are entitled to receive support. However, we are aware that the level of this support is considerably less than current Income Support rates, which are established at a minimum level to meet essential living needs. We accept that deductions are made as services charges are provided for, unlike for those in the mainstream benefit system. However, we are concerned that this deduction is too high. Those in the mainstream system who have their utility bills covered in their rent arrangements have a standard rate deducted from their payments. The deduction rate for asylum seekers, however, is higher. Due to this disparity, asylum-seeking young people between the age of 16–18 and families with children are ultimately entitled to just over half the current rate of Income Support. This difference is too high and is the result of asylum seekers paying a higher than standard rate of deduction, leaving many with inadequate financial support. We welcome the recommendation from the report of the Parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people438 that asylum support for families provided with accommodation should be aligned with mainstream benefit rates paid for living expenses.

3.2 Support levels are even lower for those who have had an asylum claim refused. Under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, asylum seekers who have had their claim refused are entitled to support but at an even lower level than those receiving support through Section 95. Whilst families with children continue to be eligible for Section 95 support even if their claim is refused, those who have children after a refusal are only eligible for Section 4 support. The extremely low level of support for families who have children after their asylum claim is refused places some into a financial situation where they cannot meet their children’s essential living needs. We welcome the recommendation from the report of the Parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people that the Government should abolish Section 4 support.

3.3 We are concerned about the financial difficulties that many families go through during the period of transition between receiving National Asylum Support System (NASS) support and moving into the mainstream system. Our practitioners work with asylum-seeking families who are granted temporary or indefinite leave to remain and are subsequently no longer eligible for NASS support. Whilst they become eligible for support through the mainstream system (including child benefits), we know that it typically takes 2–6 weeks to make the transition from one system to the other. They are therefore left without any support during the time and become reliant on our services. It is clear that support is needed in this transition period to avoid this gap in provision and prevent families from becoming destitute.

3.4 Recommendations

• — Asylum seekers receiving support under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should receive service charge deductions at the standard rate applied to those in the mainstream benefit system.
• — Families who have children after an asylum claim is refused should be supported under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act rather than the lower rates under Section 4 of the Act.
• — A system of financial support should be put in place for asylum-seeking families making the transition from NASS support to the mainstream system to ensure that they are adequately provided for in this period.

Right to work

3.5 The poor financial support that asylum-seeking families receive is made worse as they are denied permission to work whilst their application is being considered. Almost all of the asylum seekers we support are denied permission to work and many have waited for long periods of time for a decision to be made on their case. Our practitioners report that parents want to be able to support themselves and contribute to society. Many have skills that would enable them to do so. Not being able to work means that they are reliant on state support, leaving them in poverty. It can also affect their feeling of self-worth as they are unable to take an active part in society. These two factors can combine to make it difficult for parents to provide happy homes for their children.

3.6 As there is a backlog of asylum applications, it is unfair to penalise asylum seekers for the delay in decisions. If they have waited more than six months for a decision through no fault of their own, we believe that they should be given the right to work. The welfare system, for those who are able to work, is based upon the principle of providing support for them to be able to do so. Keeping asylum seekers who are able to work solely reliant on the welfare system goes against this principle. It also prevents them from giving back to the society that has supported them and from contributing to the economy. If asylum seekers were given the right to work, we would expect to see improved family life and opportunities for children as their parents are given the chance to lift themselves out of poverty and regain their self-esteem as they become self-sufficient. We welcome the recommendation from the recent report of the Parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people that permission to work should be granted to asylum-seeking parents and young adults if their claim for asylum has not been concluded within six months.

3.7 Some asylum seekers and their children are unable to return to their country of origin due to a number of reasons, such as the host country refusing to take them back, a lack of papers or identification, or because they are stateless. In these situations, asylum seekers should be given the right to work as they are not responsible for their continued residence in the UK. Granting this right to work would enable them to provide better support to their children. We welcome the recommendation from the recent report of the Parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people that refused asylum seekers who cannot be returned to their country of origin should be allowed to work.

3.8 Recommendations

• — Permission to work should be granted to asylum-seeking parents and young adults if their claim for asylum has not been concluded within six months.
• — Asylum seekers should temporarily be granted permission to work if they are unable to be returned to their country of origin.

Unaccompanied migrant children

3.9 We are concerned that a significant number of unaccompanied migrant children that we work with are not given adequate support due to issues with age assessments. Age assessments represent an extremely important process for unaccompanied migrant children as they determine whether the child or young person is entitled to children’s services as a child in need. This is particularly important for unaccompanied migrant children as they enter the UK alone or separated, and require assistance. An incorrect assessment that a young person is an adult can lead to further exploitation and abuse, as they may find themselves without adequate support and accommodation, or detained with adults. It is therefore vital that the correct procedures are followed and that the assessment is independent and fair.

3.10 From Barnardo’s experience of working to support unaccompanied migrant children, age assessments often do not follow Merton guidelines. Our practitioners have first-hand experience of attending age assessment cases to support unaccompanied migrant children. In one case, a practitioner was part of an age assessment where only one social worker was present, despite guidance stating that there must be two social workers in every age assessment. As these assessments have such a large bearing on the child’s subsequent care, it is unacceptable that the decision was left to a single social worker who could not corroborate their decision with another. Additionally, our practitioners are aware that the benefit of the doubt is rarely given to young people, despite guidance stating that a young person’s age should only be disputed if it is seemingly clear that they are over 18 years of age. A question mark remains as to whether local authorities are best-placed to carry out impartial age assessments when the result determines the level of support they will need to provide for the young person. An independent, multi-agency panel approach to age assessments is needed so that unaccompanied migrant children can receive the support that they are entitled to.

3.11 We are concerned that some of the unaccompanied migrant children we work with are unable to access legal advice and are therefore not adequately supported through the legal process. In particular, there is a shortage of specialist legal advice available for complex cases. It is likely that this has been influenced by the cuts to legal aid and the reduction in the number of services that provide asylum and immigration advice. Our practitioners in the North of England report that it is difficult for children to access solicitors following cuts to legal aid services, and some have had to take on representation from London despite the clear disadvantages that this entails.

3.12 Recommendations

• — The training of social workers who are involved in age assessments must be improved.
• — The culture of disbelief around unaccompanied migrant children’s presented ages must be challenged and tackled.
• — There should be an independent, multi-agency panel approach to determining age assessments.
• — The Government should ensure that unaccompanied migrant children have access to free legal representation for all cases, including the most complex.

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

Whilst we do not have any figures on the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers, the points below are based on the issues that our practitioners see on a regular basis.

Material deprivation

4.1 Through our direct work with asylum seekers, our practitioners are aware of the difficulties that many asylum seekers face due to a lack of adequate financial support. We are very worried that many are simply unable to meet their essential living needs through the asylum support system alone and cannot access the most basic of provisions. Families are often forced into accessing food parcels and relying on short-term support from friends. We know of instances where parents are unable to buy warm clothing for their children in the winter or to replace their clothes as the children grow. Many are also unable to access leisure activities or healthy food options due to the costs involved and are often unable to buy items necessary for the development of their children such as books and toys. Overall, these effects combine to have a significant detrimental effect on children and young people’s development.

Housing

4.2 We are very concerned about the standard of accommodation provided to asylum-seeking families and we are aware that some of the families we work with live in conditions of destitution. Our practitioners support asylum seekers who are provided with NASS accommodation and advocate on their behalf. They report that many housing providers do not maintain their properties appropriately and that good conditions are the exception rather than the rule. The houses are often damp, small and have a range of issues from pest infestation to poor heating. These conditions are not in the best interests of children and do not promote their welfare. Worse still, we know of examples of accommodation with broken windows, broken heating or water systems, and broken locks. We have also advocated on behalf of young women with children who have had housing providers regularly entering their accommodation without prior warning and without knocking. It is clear that some NASS accommodation does not meet minimum accepted standards of living and the examples above lead us to believe that there are safeguarding issues around children living in housing that is not secure.

Case study – inadequate NASS accommodation

One of our practitioners accompanied a young woman with children to view a NASS provided flat in Manchester. Upon arriving they noticed that the cooker had been placed in the middle of the kitchen as the allocated spot by the wall had been too small to place it into. The piping extended from the wall to the cooker, sectioning off part of the room. In both the kitchen and the children’s bedroom there were gaps in the wall. This led to extremely cold conditions in the flat and meant that outsiders could peer in. Finally, the bath had a leak and this had led to a pool of water on the floor. With the support of our practitioner she was able to complain about the flat and was eventually moved into alternative accommodation.

4.3 We are worried that the asylum seekers we work with in NASS accommodation have been required to move accommodation too readily. We know that there are cases where asylum seekers with children have been required to move out of their accommodation with little explanation or notice. Moving to a new location can be a particularly daunting experience for asylum seekers, especially if they have built up a system of support in their area. Some may not have knowledge of their new area or how to access information. Support during the moving process is therefore crucial. From our experience, however, there is often minimal support, if any, leaving many to fend for themselves. Requiring families to move to distant locations means that children have to be moved to new schools. When this happens on a regular basis, it is likely to disrupt their education.

Case study – frequently changing accommodation

A mother with three children under the age of 7 was required to move house three times in quick succession. The first two times, she re-located all of her children into new schools. Moving schools so frequently had a negative emotional impact on her children and she had the additional cost of paying for new school uniforms.

The third time they were moved, they were told it was to be a temporary placement. Consequently, she decided not to change her children’s school. As the journey to the school would have involved taking two buses, a cost she could not afford, she and her three young children walked for an hour to school and an hour from school everyday.

Case study – lack of support and information

A 19 year-old woman had been trafficked into the UK and was allocated a social worker who supported her to obtain Housing Benefit and Income Support. After she moved into her flat, it was established that she should not have been given this support as she had an asylum claim pending and was therefore ineligible to receive benefits. The young woman was then given one day’s notice to move out and given no further information on whether she would be financially supported or where she would be moved to. Whilst our practitioners were able to advocate on her behalf so that she was allowed to stay in the flat until other forms of support were established, this vulnerable young person was placed in a very stressful situation as a result of poor communication and a lack of support.

4.4 Recommendations

• — Asylum seekers in NASS accommodation have a right to live in adequate housing. Urgent action should be taken to ensure that this housing meets minimum standards to ensure that children are kept safe and that their welfare is promoted.
• — Asylum-seeking families with children should be allocated to accommodation which they can occupy for the duration of their asylum applications. If this is not possible, families should not be required to move distances which entails children changing schools and they should be provided with information about their rights, entitlements and service provision in their new areas.

Unaccompanied migrant children and child trafficking

4.5 We are aware that few of the unaccompanied migrant children we work with are granted a durable status to remain in the UK and that this can lead to destitution in the long-run. Many unaccompanied migrant children are refused asylum and given discretionary leave to remain for three years or until they are 17 and a half years old. These children are left with a temporary resolution and the knowledge that their residence is not permanent. Some unaccompanied migrant children cannot be returned to their country of origin after their discretionary leave to remain ends. This can be due to a number of reasons, such as the host country refusing to take back asylum seekers, a lack of papers or identification, or because the child is stateless. Working directly with children who have faced this scenario in the past, our practitioners are aware of the shocking position that these young people are placed in. Without the right to remain in the UK, they are often left without the basic means to support themselves, such as the right to work or access benefits and accommodation, and are left destitute. Some are given a subsistence allowance following a Human Rights Assessment but the level of this support remains woeful and, without statutory guidance on the assessments, its application remains varied.

4.6 Trafficked children are particularly vulnerable in the current system. As their discretionary leave to remain ends, many apply for asylum at the age of 18. During this process, they may become frightened that they will return to their country of origin, and may subsequently return to traffickers. The prospect of being refused asylum at the age of 18 can therefore have particularly negative consequences for trafficked children.

Case study—a trafficked child

Our practitioners work directly with trafficked children and have first-hand experience of the difficulties they go through upon turning 18. In one case, a child had been trafficked into the UK and been given discretionary leave to remain. As this ended when he turned 17 and a half, he applied for asylum. He became frightened during the decision-making process that his asylum claim would be rejected and that he would be returned to his country of origin where he had been persecuted. Whilst our practitioners re-assured him that he could appeal even his claim was rejected, he had been offered a job by his traffickers and been told to leave his children’s home. A few days later, he was reported missing. It seemed that the fear of having his claim rejected and having to return to his country of origin had led him to return to his traffickers. Our practitioners report that this type of scenario has occurred in a number of cases, and that traffickers may attempt to re-engage with children at this stage as they are aware of the heightened anxiety they often feel when their discretionary leave to remain ends.

4.7 Recommendations

• — As the current decision-making process around asylum claims does not represent a durable status for children, this should be provided for all. This may include granting indefinite leave to remain to all unaccompanied migrant children, including trafficked children.
• — It is vital that all unaccompanied migrant children who are unable to return to their country of origin are granted indefinite leave to remain as it is completely unacceptable that the current system leaves them in destitution.

Barnardo’s

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013