Home Affairs Committee

1. About Scottish Refugee Policy Forum

1.2 Scottish Refugee Policy Forum is an independent, refugee-led organisation. We seek to encourage and facilitate the integration of all asylum seekers and refugees living in Scotland by assisting them to identify a common purpose and collective voice.

1.3 We are a member organisation, and represent over 25 refugee community organisations, associated organisations, and individuals. We develop our policy positions through regular dialogue with our members and other organisations.

2. Introduction

2.2 We welcome the Inquiry and the opportunity to submit written evidence on behalf of our members. We would also be happy to provide oral evidence.

2.3 In February 2012, we held a Policy Conference for our members entitled ‘A Fairer Scotland for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in a Time of Austerity’. Approximately 70 people from refugee community organisations, individuals from refugee communities and related organisations participated in the Conference.

2.4 Our response to the Inquiry is informed by concerns and experiences that our members share with us277 and refers to specific issues that were raised during our Policy Conference.

3. Summary

3.1 There are welfare and access issues asylum seekers experience before, during and after the screening process that are currently unaddressed in the current system. We have provided information about welfare and access issues caused by the Croydon travel policy, and information and advice access issues that prevent people engaging with the asylum process, which contribute to the current high rate of appeals. We have made recommendations on the need for breathing space provision of asylum support and changes to information provision that could help people genuinely engage with the Home Office during the asylum process.

3.2 We strongly believe that the ineffective current screening system marks the start of asylum seekers’ accounts being questioned as credible. Our response links this to the culture of disbelief that asylum seekers then encounter when they reach the asylum interview stage. We have concerns about how the New Operating Model will address these issues and put a question to the Committee.

3.3 We question the effectiveness of the 5 year review and believe it should be abolished. We believe the administration burden outweighs its effectiveness, and our response provides information about the the psychological impact the review has on refugees, and the barriers it causes to integration.

3.4 It is our opinion that the system of asylum support does not meet people’s essential living needs, and we believe that the current support policies around information provision, Section 4 and those with additional needs create an administrative burden for the Home Office and prevent people living in a dignified way. In our response we advocate for support rates and systems that meet people’s essential living costs.

3.5 We feel strongly about the prevalence of destitution, particularly among refused asylum applicants. Our response provides evidence on the impact that prevalent destitution has on communities and its contribution towards crime, as well as UKBA administration burdens and the unnecessary distress breaks in support cause. Our recommendations include that all destitute asylum applicants at all stages of the process are provided with cash end-to-end support.

Scottish Refugee Policy Forum’s Response to the Inquiry

4. The effectiveness of the UK Border Agency screening process

4.1 The Impact of Croydon Travel on the Effectiveness of the Screening Process Asylum seekers are required to travel to the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon to register their asylum claim. It is our view that this policy creates welfare issues that hinder people’s first steps in accessing and engaging with the asylum process. Many newly arrived asylum seekers are destitute and have no means of paying for the long journey to Croydon. They rely upon the limited funds of small charities to finance their journey. Their journeys to Croydon can be delayed, due to bad advice from agents or contacts who delay or prevent access to information about travelling Croydon, and also problems finding their way due to language barriers and no knowledge of UK culture or systems. This causes confusion and distress. Our members strongly highlighted that many newly-arrived asylum seekers arrive in Scotland in poor mental and physical health due to persecution or torture experienced in their home countries and they are disorientated from a difficult journey from their home countries to the UK278. People are then further exhausted by an overnight journey from Scotland to Croydon followed by long queuing times and long interviews at the Unit. These unaddressed welfare issues prevent people fully engaging in the interview, or disclosing or recalling information. They can unintentionally provide inconsistent information or withhold important information about their case. A confusing and distressing screening experience for the asylum seeker can subsequently impact on his/her ability to engage in his/her asylum interview.

4.2 Access To Information and Advice Before Screening: Asylum seekers have to make an important decision about registering an asylum claim but are under pressure to do so quickly from screening officials without prior access to quality legal advice or a good understanding of the asylum process and the role of Home Office. Many newly arrived asylum seekers fear and do not trust the basic information provided by screening officials due to past experiences in their home countries, where disclosing even basic information to government bodies (as required during screening) may result in persecution of family or friends. They can unintentionally provide inconsistent information or withhold important information about their case. Some people’s cases are fast tracked before they have had a chance to disclose their experiences.

4.3 Welfare and Access Needs Unaddressed at Screening: A Member experience

Member experience: Fatima

“I was kept waiting for hours, without food. My interview was scheduled for 10:15am but did not start until 2:30pm. The interview was very brief: very basic information on my name, nationality and partner was collected. I was stressed and confused, as throughout the interview I was not given the opportunity or felt reassured I that I could speak openly about my experience and therefore I felt I was not in a safe place to give sufficient information. When I spoke, I could hear that I sounded incoherent. Before I had the chance to tell my story, I was detained and my case was routed on fast track.

Before my substantial interview I had only a brief meeting with a legal representative, where he collected background information and discussed legal aid. I did not get adequate time to speak fully about my case and get advice on the core issues of my case.”

4.4 Recommendations:

4.4.1 Provide regional screening units for routine screening to improve fair access to the asylum process.

4.4.2 The Home Office must consider how to provide breathing space provision of asylum support for asylum seekers who are too vulnerable or traumatised to engage with the screening process. Breathing space provision could prevent destitution, allow immediate welfare needs to be addressed, enable access to independent legal advice and therefore assist asylum seekers to understand and engage better with the asylum process.

4.4.3 In good time prior to the screening interview, the Home Office should provide easily-accessible and multilingual written information on the type of questions people can expect at the screening interview and reasons why this information is required and how Home Office will use it.

4.4.4 Abolish the Detained Fast Track procedure in the long-term. In the short-term, ensure that the screening process

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

5.1 Question: At present, there are often gaps and inconsistencies in asylum seekers’ accounts that they provide at the screening stage because they are unable to communicate their needs and experiences. Asylum decision makers often question the credibility of these accounts. However the lack of information is often caused by unaddressed welfare and access issues. The inefficient screening process contributes to UKBA using limited information to make asylum decisions. We believe that there is a culture of disbelief among UK asylum decision-makers. Many of our members tell that us they feel that their story has not been believed at the screening and interview stage. This culture of disbelief leads to UKBA making decisions on limited information later overturned on appeal. The success of triage system of the New Asylum Operating Model will depend heavily upon on this information obtained at the screening stage. How will the Home Office resolve welfare and access issues at screening and interview, issues and address this culture of disbelief? In the long-term this could ensure that asylum seekers have the opportunity to disclose their experiences in a genuinely supportive environment, which could lead to a reduction in the current high rate of appeals.

6. The effectiveness of the 5 year review system introduced in 2005

6.1 System creates anxiety and Insecurity

We strongly believe that the 5 year review system introduced for people with refugee status to apply for indefinite leave to remain has a detrimental effect on refugees’ efforts to integrate rebuild their lives. Following an often stressful experience of the asylum process, refugees then endure a 5 year period of uncertainty of not knowing if they will be allowed to remain UK, which keeps people in a state of anxiety.

6.2 System creates barriers to employment and education

Our members with refugee status can have difficulties accessing employment or education if employers or higher education institutions are aware that their status is insecure. Our members have had their documents stuck with the Review team, which has also prevented them accessing employment.

6.3 Impact of the administrative backlog

We are aware that the system has created another unnecessary and costly administrative burden for UKBA.

6.4 Recommendation

6.4.1 Abolish the 5 year review system and replace with indefinite leave to remain.

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

7.1 Section 95 Rates—Essential Living Costs: The current weekly rate of Section 95 support (below current income support levels) is too low to cover essential living costs. The rate of Section 95 does not increase in line with inflation. The rate of support is not sufficient to buy healthy food regularly alongside travel or clothing costs. Asylum seekers have to go without food if they are obliged to spend money on clothes (eg in cold weather) as asylum support does not cover both.

7.2 Section 95 Rates for Children Aged 16+: The policy of reducing Section 95 rates for children when they turn 16 ignores the high costs of raising older children, for example increased food costs, school materials needed to support them at critical exam stages and funding everyday activities that help them integrate their peers.

7.3 Information on Support Entitlements: Current UKBA letters provide complex information in English about how support is calculated, emergency tokens and their instructions for collection or terms of the Azure card. This information is not effectively understood by asylum seekers who do not understand English, are not literate and do not recognise letters are time-sensitive, or cannot distinguish the letter from other UKBA letters also being received. This means that asylum seekers do not access support on time within a deadline or struggle to budget. While asylum seekers in initial accommodation at the dispersal stage receive verbal information from asylum support advice services, it is difficult to retain the full extent of this information alongside other advice on other immediate orientation needs and services.

7.4 Question We are also concerned that divisions to the asylum support application and advice processes may lead to confusion among asylum seekers and agencies about who is responsible for providing and following up information on support issues.

7.5 Travel Costs To The Reporting Centre: UKBA policy to only cover travel costs for signing at the Reporting Centre for asylum seekers who live over three miles from city centre. This is very challenging for parents with childcare responsibilities who have small children who struggle to walk long distances.

7.6 Section 4 Travel Costs For People With Mobility Issues In our experience, the current Section 4 support system is ineffective in responding to the needs of Section 4-supported people with mobility issues who require additional support to cover travel costs to regular GP appointments. UKBA requires applicants to complete a form to request this additional support, which takes 3 to 6 weeks to process. Travel costs are calculated and awareded on the basis of evidence of upcoming appointments. Many people receive medical appointments at short notice and therefore cannot access support in time. Most people struggle to complete and fax the form themselves, and have to travel to an advice agency to do so.

7.7 Section 4 Azure Card Our members have stated strongly that the Azure Card places many limitations on those receiving Section 4 which are stigmatising and dehumanising.279 Azure cards can only be used in limited outlets which means that people have very limited choice of where they can shop and what they can buy, which means people sometimes cannot meet their dietary and cultural needs. They cannot be used to pay for travel, therefore limiting people’s movements and isolating them. The system requires the Azure card holder to spend the full value of the card each week, which prevents people from managing their own finances.

7.8 Recommendations

7.8.1 Increase the rate of asylum support in line with mainstream income support and rising inflation so that essential food, clothing and travel costs can all be met without compromising on one area.

7.8.2 Issue letters containing information about support in an asylum seeker’s first language

7.8.3 Asylum support rates for children over 16 should be the same as for younger children

7.8.3 Abolish Section 4 Support and provide end-to end cash-based support

7.8.4 The UK Government should consider including accommodation and financial support for asylum seekers within the mainstream benefits system to reduce bureaucratic processes to applying for support that stigmatise asylum seekers

7.8.5 Asylum seekers should be permitted to work after 6 months in the UK, regardless of the status of their asylum claim

8. The prevalence of destitution among asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers

8.1 Impact of Destitution on Wider Communities: The current policy of stopping accommodation and financial support for “appeal rights exhausted” asylum seekers does not incentivise refused asylum seekers to leave the UK. Instead, because many people cannot be returned, this policy forces many people into destitution and is therefore inhumane and ineffective. The policy has a damaging effect on communities. Many refused and destitute asylum seekers are forced to approach community contacts for food, accommodation or cash hand outs. These contacts are often from refugee communities, themselves on low incomes or asylum support. During our Policy Conference, members stated that community contacts feel obliged to support destitute friends or acquaintances and struggle to do this in crowded accommodation and an already basic income or while breaching their own support conditions280. These pressures can result in long term tensions within communities, and leave destitute people more isolated once their contacts can no longer support them.

8.2 The 21 Day Period Before Stopping Support Current UKBA policy sets a 21 day period between an asylum refusal decision and stopping support. This does not allow refused asylum seekers enough time to explore their legal and support options, particularly for people for whom it is difficult to return. Many refused asylum seekers become destitute after this period while they their or awaiting decisions on Section 4 support. The current policy therefore causes unnecessary suffering, as well as an administrative burden on UKBA caseworkers to process support terminations, support reinstatements during the period and new or repeat applications for Section 4 support.

8.3 The Effect of the Destitution Policy on Pregnancy

Women who are 7 months’ pregnant are eligible to apply for Section 4 Support. We are aware of women whose pregnancy fell just below this term have become destitute. Without regular support, they cannot afford to eat regularly or healthily enough to the standard required during pregnancy.

8.4 The Destitution Policy Contributes to Organised Crime: By creating a large number of people who have no means to support themselves, an additional consequence of this policy is that it contributes to sustaining organised crime. Destitute refused asylum seekers are vulnerable to exploitation from illegal working or prostitution.

8.5 Recommendation

Ensure that all asylum seekers at risk of destitution are provided with end-to-end accommodation and cash support until they are granted status or leave the country.

Scottish Refugee Policy Forum

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013