Home Affairs Committee

Introduction

1. The Children’s Society works with almost 1,500 young refugees and migrants each year through eight specialist centres across England as well as through children’s centres and other mainstream services. We work with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as well as those who are here with their families. Our submission to the inquiry focuses on the experience of our direct practice in supporting children and families as well as our recent research based on the views of young people.

2. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s examination of the asylum process, and have focused our response on the quality of decision-making, the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum seekers and the system of asylum support.

3. Our submission is centred around the government’s international and domestic obligations towards children, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the duty on the Home Secretary under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.

The assessment of the credibility of women, the mentally ill, victims of torture and specific nationalities within the decision-making process and whether this is reflected in appeal outcomes

4. Although the Committee has set out specific vulnerable groups within this section, it is important to remember that children, who will have particular needs, will also be represented within these sub-sections: eg they will be female asylum-seekers as both unaccompanied children and dependents of their families’ claim; victims of torture; those with mental health difficulties and so on.

5. As they grow up, children develop cognitive, physical, social, emotional and moral capacities, and this continues into the early to mid-20s. This includes their ability to communicate, make decisions, develop an awareness of others, ability to project events to more distant points in the future and make judgements about long-term consequences. As adolescents they are more easily influenced by the advice given to them by others, including adults in their surroundings and their peers. However, despite some recent improvements, the current asylum system makes little allowance for these varying developmental stages in its treatment of children. For example, asylum applications and all written communication is the same for children as for adults.

6. From our research and a consultation with young people supported by our services across England632, we know that young people continue to be treated with suspicion and disbelief by officials, both with respect to their age and when they disclose abuse, exploitation and persecution. This occurs despite guidance that the benefit of the doubt should be applied more generously when dealing with children. Many young people told us they found the asylum process confusing and unsettling, particularly being asked the same questions repeatedly and often felt that officials were trying to ‘catch them out’. As one young person explained: ‘They kept asking the same questions again and again to see if you are telling the truth. They do not trust what you say.’

7. Evidence provided by young people is often subjected to a level of scrutiny that is unrealistic for children who may be unable to remember precise details and dates that occurred when they were much younger. We know from our direct work with young people that inconsistencies in their evidence given at different points in the process are used to discredit their claim for protection and they were not always given an opportunity to explain any discrepancies. Another factor that contributes greatly to young people’s anxieties about the asylum process is having their age disputed by the Home Office or local authority. They cannot understand why their age—a key aspect of their identity—is not believed, leaving them feeling powerless about vital decisions made about their lives. The fact that a child’s age is being disputed can have an impact on how the case owner assesses their credibility in their protection claim, making them doubly-disadvantaged.

Case study—Nadeem from Afghanistan

Nadeem claimed asylum in the UK when he was 15, but he was not believed about his age. His social worker took on a caring role as his corporate parent, but was also the person who assessed his age. The initial assessment concluded that he was 16, without disputing any information that he provided during his assessment. He did not understand why this had happened.

In his asylum refusal the discrepancy between his stated age and the age given to him by his social worker was highlighted. His credibility was questioned in his asylum refusal and his disputed age was cited as a factor. The dispute over his age and in turn his immigration status have been going on for three years now, during which the young person has been detained in an Immigration Removal Centre and his mental health and emotional well-being has deteriorated.

8. We know from our direct practice with children and from what Home Office officials tell us that children rarely complain about the treatment they experience. During our consultation, young people told us that they found it hard to speak up if they felt something was wrong or that they simply were not aware of what was going on. As one young person explained: ‘When you first come to the UK you don’t know the language, you don’t know what will happen, you just do as you are told and you don’t ask questions.’ Many lacked confidence and feared that questioning or complaining to the Home Office would have negative repercussions for their case. When asked about whether they would want to provide feedback about their experiences of the asylum process most felt that the whole experience had been a long, traumatic and upsetting process which they did not like or want to think about again. Some continued to have distressing memories of being detained, having been accused of lying or being treated poorly by officials and did not want any further contact with the Home Office. One young person said: ‘When I first came I was so scared. I didn’t feel I could complain and didn’t know how.’

9. In order to create an effective and reliable decision-making process, it is vital that applicants including young people have confidence in the decisions being made about their lives. Giving young people the opportunity to tell their story is a vital part of this process. As one young person reflected during our consultation: ‘How can they make the right decision with the wrong information?’

Recommendation 1: The Home Office should address the ‘culture of disbelief’ that is still pervasive throughout the asylum system, and take steps to ensure that children and young people are treated fairly and given the benefit of the doubt in their asylum cases and with respect to their age.

Recommendation 2: The Home Office should develop and implement age-appropriate application forms and other written communication for children and young people, to ensure they can present evidence effectively and understand the asylum process throughout its different stages.

Recommendation 3: The government should establish an independent, child-friendly complaint and feedback system for children in the asylum and immigration process, in consultation with children, children’s rights experts, voluntary sector agencies, independent inspectorates and other stakeholders. It should inform Home Office policy affecting children at all stages of the immigration process. Making a complaint should not have an adverse impact on the outcome of a child’s claim or access to services.

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

10. The cross-party parliamentary inquiry on asylum support for children and young people which The Children’s Society supported633 earlier this year received evidence of widespread destitution among asylum seeking families, including evidence citing counts where children made up around 13–20% of the local destitute population. The British Red Cross told the inquiry that they frequently see families with no support at all. Of the 10,000 destitute refugees and asylum seekers that they assist every year across the UK, 20% are families with small children.

11. The Scottish Refugee Council found that during a week in March 2012, 148 people were destitute in Glasgow, including 11 families with 21 children, five pregnant women and two new mothers. Another survey of refused asylum seekers in Bradford identified 66 individuals as destitute, of which 15% were dependent children. The Asylum Support Partnership research into destitution in 2009 found that 13% of their destitute clients were people with children. Half of these families had been destitute for over six months and they were most commonly refused asylum seekers. Without a central mechanism for monitoring the extent of destitution among refugee and migrant children and young people, most of the available data relies on local tallies or estimates from organisations providing crisis relief.

12. The Children’s Society’s services have seen a noticeable increase in recent years in the numbers of families as well as unaccompanied young people experiencing destitution634. For example, our New Londoners project, which supports unaccompanied young people aged 13–21 across 11 London boroughs, is increasingly working with those who are destitute. In 2009–10, 25 out of the 174 young refugees (or 14%) that accessed our New Londoners services were destitute. In 2010–11, this figure rose to 17% when 48 out of 189 young clients were destitute. Between April and September 2011, this proportion had doubled to 34% meaning that 46 out of 133 young clients supported by our services were destitute. In 2012 we set up dedicated services to support destitute young people.

13. Unaccompanied young people find themselves destitute for a number of reasons but primarily because their age is not believed by local authorities and therefore they cannot access local authority care. For young people who have turned 18, support may be withdrawn from them because their asylum claim has been refused and they have become ‘appeal rights exhausted’. However, many are unable to be returned back to places like Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka and Eritrea, where they have fled from.

14. Being unable to access support and being homeless has a significant impact on young people’s immediate health and well-being as well as their sense of self-worth, dignity and hope for the future. According to the young people we consulted with, it means going hungry, not having access to health services or education, and putting their lives at risk when they are forced to sleep rough or with strangers. Destitute young people we support have self-harmed and attempted suicide, while others have been sexually exploited or engaged in other harmful activities in order to survive.

Case study—Peter from Iran

Peter is a young Kurd who came to the UK alone from Iran to seek protection when he was a child. But the Home Office rejected his asylum claim before his 18th birthday and six months later social services stopped his support and he was made homeless for nine months. During this time he slept on buses, stayed with friends and sometimes slept in a mosque. He experienced health problems, sometimes eating only once a day, or not at all. He stayed in unsafe places and regularly experienced violence and abuse on the streets from passers-by. He was eventually taken back into local authority care following advocacy from The Children’s Society and his lawyer.

While homeless, he tried to commit suicide more than once. ‘I tried to kill myself. I took some tablets. I went to sleep but then my friend helped me and gave me food.’ The support from voluntary and community organisations was essential in enabling him to survive both in terms of food, money for travel and emotional support. ‘I don’t feel that I’m a proper person. We are different. I don’t know how to say it. I don’t think I’m like you because I’ve been homeless.’

15. The lack of a continuous, end-to-end support structure means that inevitably many children and families fall through the gaps in provision. Some of this is a matter of policy while other periods of destitution are due administrative delays. From our direct practice we know that some children are born into destitution because their parents are cut off from asylum support when their claim is refused but they are unable to leave the UK. While adults without children who are refused asylum may be able to rely on friends for a place to stay, the arrival of a child often makes these types of arrangements far more difficult and families are then forced to apply for Section 4 asylum support from the Home Office. Families also experience destitution when there is domestic violence or a breakdown in their living arrangements for other reasons. It’s important to remember that for single adult women destitution leaves them vulnerable to abuse and sexual exploitation which can result in unintended pregnancies: evidence submitted to the asylum support inquiry highlighted that in some cases women are forced to engage in sexually transactional relationships and prostitution in order to access cash to alleviate destitution.

16. In addition, the asylum support inquiry received evidence that showed families can be left without support due to unnecessarily bureaucratic processes, miscommunication or obstructiveness by agency staff. As one mother who had been moved several times explained, ‘Every time a move occurs they stopped [the] weekly allowance for about three or four weeks…so it means that for this period of time I am actually left with no support, no finances at all, which is really difficult sometimes because I have a child who is six years old.’635

Case study—Riyya, a young carer

Riyya was 11 when she and her disabled mother claimed asylum in the UK. Her mother could not walk, so it fell to Riyya to take care of her, to do all the shopping and cleaning. Riyya and her mother experienced periods of destitution, when they were entirely without asylum support because, ‘My mum couldn’t go [sign in] every single week because of her disability, and if we don’t go we can’t get the money which meant a lot of the times we didn’t have any money…it took around three or four months for them to realise.’

After four years the family finally obtained indefinite leave to remain. Riyya felt this could have been avoided had proper support been provided with their legal case earlier on.

17. Furthermore, children can become destitute when families gain refugee status and support from the Home Office is terminated before they can gain employment or access mainstream support. This means that children can go without income or a place to stay for weeks and months. The serious case review of Child EG by Westminster Council involved the death of a refugee mother and her baby son where the baby starved to death636. The mother suffered from a rare brain condition linked to her HIV infection leaving her unable to care for her children effectively. The family had moved home six times in five years, first in the Midlands and then in Westminster. Although this was a complex case involving a number of different factors, it highlights the serious gap in transition between Home Office support and mainstream benefits, where families who obtain refugee status are cut off from support before an alternative is put in place, leaving them destitute. The review emphasised that the requirement ‘to actually become homeless before the local authority or Benefits Agency could assist her left [the mother] in an extremely uncertain position.’

18. We believe that forcing children and families into destitution undermines immigration control and should not be used to encourage young people and families to return to their country of origin when it is against the best interests of the child, where their safety is at risk and where they are unable to get the support they need.

Is the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) sufficient and effective and how could it be improved?

19. Given that families are generally not allowed to work or access mainstream benefits, the asylum support system is their only means of survival. The Children’s Society believes that the current asylum support system is in urgent need of reform if it is to have regard for the safety and wellbeing of children. The Home Office must meet its international and domestic obligations to promote children’s best interests and the asylum support system must enable parents to provide for their children’s wider needs to learn, grow and develop.

Impact of poverty on children

20. In its Child Poverty Strategy in 2011637, the government emphasised its commitment to ending child poverty in the UK. It stated that ‘It is unacceptable that in one of the most developed economies in the world millions of children have their lives blighted by deprivation. It is our moral duty to support all children to be productive, healthy and happy members of society, and we are determined to achieve this goal.’

21. There is overwhelming evidence that show that low income, poor housing, disadvantaged neighbourhoods and parental stress create disadvantages for children in the short and long-term. These are all significant factors for asylum-seeking children and families. Poverty impacts on children’s physical, mental and emotional well-being and is associated with a higher risk of both illness and premature death. Problems for children in poverty include low birth weight, childhood accidents, speech delay, illnesses such as ear infections, chest infections, pneumonia and asthma, and increased risk-taking behaviour among teenagers.

Levels of asylum support

22. Despite this evidence and the government’s continued commitment to tackling child poverty for all children, the current system of support forces thousands of children in asylum-seeking families to live in severe poverty for long periods of time. There are an estimated 10,000 children living on asylum support, including almost 800 children on Section 4 support.638 Based on evidence provided to the asylum support inquiry by over 200 individuals and organisations, including child poverty, health and well-being experts, social workers, local authorities and families themselves, the panel concluded that the current levels of support provided to families are too low to meet their essential living needs which is the government’s stated objective.

23. Our analysis639 has shown the striking disparity between asylum support levels and mainstream benefits, which are considered to provide a minimum standard income below which British families would not be expected to live. Rates are so low that in some cases families on asylum support are getting just half of what they would in the mainstream system and would need nearly three times more than they currently receive in order to be pulled out of poverty. This is even lower where a family member has a disability.

24. Families that we work with through our services have told us about the reality of what living on asylum support means for them: some parents are forced to skip meals to feed their children, they are unable to afford meat or fresh vegetables, their children cannot participate in activities with their friends, like attending school trips or birthday parties. They struggle to save for larger items like winter coats. Living in this way leaves families incredibly isolated. As Mary—a single mother with two children living on Section 95—reflected: ‘I know whenever I go outside I have to spend money. So I try to stay inside. I’m fed up to live here. There’s no freedom. You’re like in a cage. Doing nothing. It makes me feel stressed. It’s so difficult to live in this situation. Asylum life is not a life that people are happy to be living.’

Case studies of families supported by The Children’s Society:640

Case study—Mariam and her son Sam, from Sri Lanka

For Mariam and her little boy the Section 95 support is not enough to cover essential items, such as school uniforms and it is just about enough money for food. It is difficult to get food parcels from the British Red Cross or go to meet their solicitor because the bus costs £4.50 return and as Sam is 5 years old he has to pay as well. Mariam would prefer to support herself: ‘I don’t like government money, I’d like to have a job. I want to work.’

Their Home Office accommodation is cold, dirty and smelly and the dust affects Sam’s asthma. Mariam suffers from a range of health problems, including high blood pressure, headaches, eye problems and difficulties sleeping.

Case study—Nicola and her daughter Emma, from Ghana

Nicola and her 6 year old daughter Emma eat once a day living on Section 95 support, often surviving on handouts from the local church. They rarely buy fresh fruit and vegetables. Nicola gets free clothes from charities, but replacing Emma’s school uniform is difficult. Emma often can’t go on school trips, participate in charity collections or sports activities, making her even more socially excluded.

Emma tells her mother that, ‘all the class is going [swimming]—I want to go with my friends’. Nicola feels bad, but helpless: ‘I can’t do anything—I don’t have money to let her go.’ Emma can’t go to her friend’s birthday parties because they have no money to buy a present. The poverty is taking its toll on Nicola: ‘It’s torture living this way. I am depressed all the time. You feel useless. I’m always living in fear. You want to do something for yourself, you want to work on your own, don’t want to depend on the government.’

Case study—Catherine and her sons David and Thomas

Catherine, her young child Thomas and her baby David, struggle with the Section 95 support they receive. Fresh food is hard to come by and choices are restricted: ‘If you’re eating spaghetti, bread and tea, we can’t afford meat—maybe one time a week.’ It is near impossible for parents to continue in further education without the funds for fees and equipment. Catherine says, ‘I wish I could come and work...We cry everyday for that opportunity ... hopefully one day.’ The situation is having a huge impact on the mother’s mental health: ‘Some moments I am depressed...it’s like prison—you can walk around, but you don’t know what will happen.’

Catherine struggles to afford nappies for David; Thomas’ school uniform and shoes are worn out: ‘In the winter, we don’t have good shoes’. Catherine explains that, ‘Primark is so expensive’ and the children ‘they grow so much.’ To get clothes, the family relies on help from charities.

Cashless ‘Section 4’ support—not fit for children

25. There are currently around 800 children in receipt of Section 4 support641, which the government has argued is intended as an ‘austere regime’642 of temporary support for refused asylum seekers. More than half of all cases on Section 4 support have been in this situation for two years or more.643 According to information provided by the Home Office through a Freedom of Information Act request, of the 3,715 refused asylum seekers (including dependents) in receipt of Section 4 support on 3 April 2011, 21% or 765 were children. The overwhelming majority of these (86% or 656) were very young children under five years old, in their crucial early years of life when healthy development matters most.644

26. Section 4 support is not designed for children and does not have their best interests in mind nor is it adequate to meet their full range of welfare needs. Although some extra payments are made for younger children, generally children on Section 4 receive the same base rate as adults at approximately £5 per day. While the costs associated with having a newborn are the same for all families, the one-off maternity grant paid to families is £300 on Section 95 and £250 on Section 4. In addition, despite living far below the poverty line children on Section 4 (unlike those on Section 95) are not eligible for school hardship funds, free school meals or the pupil premium for their schools which are intended for disadvantaged children.

27. The card-based, cashless support system effectively leaves families stranded—unable to buy milk from the corner shop, take a bus to the doctor’s when their child is sick or in an emergency. Parents must walk long distances to the shops, with shopping bags and their babies, no matter what the weather. They have to walk their children to school, even if children are at different schools. Under Section 4 families live in designated accommodation and receive credit on the ‘Azure Card’ to buy food and essential toiletries in designated shops, meaning they cannot get best value for money. Not being able to carry over more than £5 per week means that saving for larger items such as a winter coat, becomes difficult. Due to illnesses some families miss out on their weekly allowance, which will be removed from the card at the end of each week.

Infant mortality and maternal deaths

28. The asylum support inquiry highlighted alarming evidence linking increased infant mortality rates and deaths in pregnancy with inadequate provision of non-cash support, dispersal and gaps in the asylum support system. According to evidence received, refugee and asylum seeking women make up 12% of all maternal deaths, but only 0.3% of the population in the UK. Pregnant asylum seeking women are seven times more likely to develop complications and three times more likely to die during childbirth than the general population. In the UK, 46% of stillbirths and deaths in the first year are due to low birth weight; there are clear links to malnourishment, poor accommodation and a lack of cash-support, all of which are far more likely to be experienced if you are an asylum seeker.

29. Maternal monitoring helps to identify problems before birth. However, being dispersed to a new area in the late stages of pregnancy means that women lose the continuity of health care and links to their support network. Women on the cashless Section 4 system are particularly at risk and will not always be able to access hospitals. As one academic explained: ‘They have not got the cash to ring up the doctor. They are not attending any of their antenatal appointments…We were finding women who were being dispersed at 38 and 39 weeks of pregnancy…One woman started to go into labour, did not have a midwife, did not know where the hospital was, and it was only the kindness of strangers in the street that got her to hospital... Dispersal breaks the continuity of care.’645

Support for 16 and 17 year olds

30. There is a particular anomaly in the levels of asylum support for children aged 16 and 17 in comparison to younger children in the asylum process. Unlike in the mainstream benefit system which treats all children under 18 as the same, children aged 16 and 17 in the asylum system who are entitled to either Section 95 or Section 4 support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are not entitled to the same level of support as under 16s—those on Section 95 support receive £13.16 per week less than other children. The Home Office’s justification given to us for this is that: ‘16 and 17 year old asylum seekers are not required to continue in full time education, and are therefore in a position more akin to that of adult asylum seekers. The rate is set at an appropriate level which ensures that the essential living needs of over 16s continue to be met.’ 646

31. Our experience is that education is a high priority for most refugee children and young people and we know that many 16 and 17 year old children on asylum support will be in full time education and will therefore have additional costs from attending college such as transportation, lunch, stationery and school trips. Furthermore, given the government’s commitment to raising the participation age to 17 by 2013 and 18 by 2015 there is no logic in not bringing financial support for 16 and 17 year olds in line with that for other children. We believe that if the rates of Section 95 support for 16 and 17 year olds were raised to at least £53 per week to align them with support for under-16s, this would cost around £700,000 per year.

Recommendation 4: Levels of asylum support must be adequate to meet children’s full range of needs to learn, grow and develop, and reflect government commitments to tackle child poverty for all children by ensuring asylum support does not force children to live in poverty and material deprivation, and put children’s health and well-being at risk.

Recommendation 5: Asylum support for families should be aligned with mainstream benefit rates and never fall below 70% of income support. Support should be increased annually and at the very least in line with income support.

Recommendation 6: The particular needs and additional costs of living for pregnant women, women with small children and families where there is a disability should be taken into account when decisions are made concerning financial support, accommodation and links to other services, including maternity services.

Recommendation 7: All children and families should be able to access cash-based Section 95 support, rather than Section 4 support so that all children and their families who need support can get it while they are in the UK. This should include children who were born after an asylum refusal to ensure that no child is left destitute.

Recommendation 8: The government should amend legislation under Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to enable care leaver and children with families to access local authority support if mainstream support is not available to ensure that no child or care leaver is made destitute and that families are not threatened with separation for the purposes of immigration control.

Recommendation 9: Support levels for 16 and 17 year olds should be brought in line with that of other children, in recognition of the additional costs for children of education and development.

Recommendation 10: All children who receive asylum support, including those on Section 4 support, should have equal access to nursery placements, free school meals and the pupil premium, given that they are children living in severe poverty.

Key reports referenced within this response:

Final report of the parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people January 2013 supported by The Children’s Society: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/asylum_support_inquiry_report_final.pdf

A Briefing from The Children’s Society: Highlighting the gap between the asylum support and mainstream benefits:

http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/a_briefing_from_the_childrens_society_on_asylum_support.pdf

‘I don’t feel human—Experiences of destitution among young refugees and migrants’ February 2012: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/thechildrenssociety_idontfeelhuman_final.pdf‘

‘Into the Unknown’—Children’s journeys through the asylum process September 2012: http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/into-the-unknown--childrens-journeys-through-the-asylum-process--the-childrens-society.pdf

The Children’s Society

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013