Home Affairs Committee

The Home Office is making its own submission to the Inquiry, and consequently the views expressed below are not necessarily those of the Home Office.

1. Introduction

1.1 North West Regional Strategic Migration Partnership welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the above Inquiry. We wish to raise a number of issues relating to 5-year review, asylum support, destitution and media coverage, as follows.

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

2.1 Member agencies have reported that recognised refugees subject to 5-year review sometimes experience difficulties in accessing training and/or job opportunities, as organisations are deterred by the uncertainty introduced by the limited leave policy over a person’s long-term future in the UK. The resultant increase in time spent unemployed can lead to a loss of confidence and skills on the part of the individual, as well as having a negative impact on integration within communities.

2.2 This experience is also reflected in research conducted at national level. See:

Doyle L, Cutler S and Lee J (2010), The impact of limited leave on refugees in the UK. Refugee Council Report.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/7080/Limited_leave_report_final_September.pdf

2.3 Housing providers in the social and private sectors are concerned that permanent tenancies granted to recognised refugees subject to 5-year review may effectively become illegal if the refugees neglect to apply for further leave to remain at the end of the initial 5-year period, or receive negative decisions. There is also the possibility that such refugees in receipt of Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance will accrue rent arrears if their HB/LHA entitlement ceases. The possibility of this scenario may create a disincentive to the granting of tenancies to these refugees. This is likely to have a negative impact on social cohesion and integration within communities.

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

3.1 In 2011, UKBA launched COMPASS (Commercial and Operational Managers Procuring Asylum Support Services). Following competitive tender, contracts to deliver services falling under COMPASS were awarded to three providers, covering six regions. This replaced the existing model that sought to utilise a number of different providers in each of UKBA’s regions.

3.2 Respondents have reported a number of concerns relating to the procurement of the contract, some of which have been well publicised in the media (albeit focusing on regions other than the North West). These concerns have focused primarily on whether the contracts awarded are sufficiently funded over their lifetime, particularly given that one of the key outcomes of COMPASS was to reduce the cost of providing asylum support services.

3.3 The primary obligation of the contract is to provide dispersed accommodation to people accessing support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The provision of this accommodation is dependent on two key factors: availability of suitable accommodation and the commercial ability to procure it. At a time when there are fundamental changes to the welfare system including housing benefit, the availability of accommodation which is both suitable and affordable within the existing dispersal areas (known as clusters) is diminished as demand on the private rented sector increases.

3.4 A key feature of the COMPASS process was the utilisation of a reverse e-auction. Whilst this is a tool successfully used in the procurement of a number of services, there are concerns that the emphasis on price that it brings may have resulted in successful bidders being tied to a contract that becomes increasingly difficult to deliver over its lifetime, and potentially lead to providers procuring accommodation in areas that, whilst commercially viable, are unsuitable for asylum dispersal, due to a range of factors including community cohesion and existing pressures on statutory services. We note that providers are required to consult with statutory bodies including Local Authorities as part of a procurement process, and whilst this is currently relatively well managed, there is an increasing risk that the priorities and requirements of statutory bodies may not be consistent with providers’ needs to discharge their contractual obligations.

3.5 We also have a number of concerns about section 4 support where it is provided to families with children. Although UKBA provides a range of additional benefits for families with children in receipt of section 4 support, our experience of working with refused asylum-seeking families suggests they often still struggle to find the money for basic necessities such as children’s clothes and shoes. There is also little provision for travel under section 4—this means some families have to walk miles to attend immigration and other essential appointments. Single parents in particular struggle to get to appointments if they have nobody to leave their children with.

3.6 Section 4 support was originally intended as an austere, cashless regime for adults refused asylum and facing a temporary obstacle to leaving the UK. Although as stated above UKBA has introduced some additional benefits, in our view section 4 support remains fundamentally unsuitable for families with children, and we recommend that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should be amended to provide section 95 support to all refused asylum-seeking families with children until their departure from the UK.

3.7 It should also be noted that former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children may suffer particular hardship, especially where age disputes are in process.

3.8 We would also like to make the point that whilst asylum and immigration are viewed as national issues, certainly from the policy perspective, the effects upon localities vary considerably. The benefits and costs are not evenly spread, and reform of elements of the asylum support system, possibly through opening up new dispersal areas, may help to reduce burdens and maximise the contribution that migrants can make to society and the economy in local areas.

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

4.1 Research undertaken in 2011323 by North West Regional Strategic Migration Partnership suggests a minimum figure of approximately 1,000 destitute migrants in the North West, the majority of whom were refused asylum seekers, concentrated in the dispersal areas of Greater Manchester and Liverpool. There was also a significant number of recognised refugees experiencing move-on problems. Most people in these combined two groups had come either from countries with oppressive regimes or from war zones, and were men aged between 25 and 35 years old.

4.2 Clearly, this is a sizeable population, and in order to mitigate the impact both on individuals and communities, we would urge the government to consider the following:

• — Introducing end-to-end support at section 95 levels which is terminated only upon either a grant of leave to remain or departure from the UK
• — Permitting asylum seekers who are legally resident in the UK to undertake paid employment. Community refugee support groups inform us that most asylum seekers neither want nor expect to be supported at public expense. They want and expect to work to support themselves.

4.3 In terms of the ongoing sustainability of the asylum regime, evidence from abroad suggests that if support to all refused asylum seekers is continued until departure from the country, accompanied by intensive casework, the rate of voluntary return (and consequently the overall rate of return) is likely to increase. Refused asylum seekers are also less likely to experience economic insecurity and vulnerability to exploitation. Examples of good practice in this area include Sweden’s Migration Board, Canada’s Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre, and Australia’s Hotham Mission. For more information, see:

Asylum Matters: Restoring Trust in the UK Asylum System, Chapter 5, The Centre for Social Justice, Dec 2008. http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/AsylumMatters.pdf

4.4 We are also concerned that recognised refugees may ‘fall through the net’ when Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants are replaced with Local Welfare Provision Schemes, potentially operating to slightly different eligibility criteria. Due to the length of time involved in benefits and National Insurance number applications, recognised refugees have in the past received Crisis Loans to tide them over when their Home Office support ceases, which can sometimes be at quite short notice.

4.5 Recognised refugees have also received Community Care Grants to furnish new accommodation when their Home Office support ceases. This has met an urgent need, as they have by definition been destitute in order to qualify for Home Office support, without savings or employment, and possibly with limited English language skills.

4.6 In light of the exceptional challenges faced by recognised refugees upon cessation of Home Office support, we would urge the government to issue guidance to Local Authorities recommending that eligibility criteria be framed in such a way as to make sure recognised refugees remain on an equal footing with other residents when Local Welfare Provision Schemes replace Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants.

4.7 We would also recommend that central government seek to ensure that eligibility criteria are broadly consistent across Local Authorities. Otherwise, this risks the possibility of Local Authorities with more favourable criteria becoming over-burdened and potentially leading to disproportionate pressures—not only financially on the Local Authority, but also on housing, employment and local services.

4.8 We also wish to express our concern over the impact of the change in the Immigration Rules from July 2012, which states that people granted Leave to Remain under Article 8 ECHR will not be able to access mainstream benefits for a period of 10 years. This has had a negative impact on some families with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) who have previously been supported as destitute by their Local Authority. We are aware of several cases in which, after legal challenge, the Home Office has agreed to reinstate access to mainstream benefits to NRPF families if the Local Authority can provide evidence that the families will be destitute without Local Authority support. The process of making a legal case for each application denied can delay the closing of a Local Authority NRPF case by up to 6 months. This represents both an additional financial cost to the Local Authority as well as an unnecessary human cost to the applicants themselves in terms of insecurity and inability to plan for the future. Therefore, we recommend that the Immigration Rules should be amended to clarify this exception, rather than having to go down the sometimes lengthy route of judicial review in each and every case.

4.9 In general terms, in view of the complexity of eligibility for benefits and services (eg education, training, ESOL), and widespread confusion amongst third sector and public sector providers, a definitive guide on eligibility for each category of immigration status would be helpful.

5. Whether the media is balanced in their reporting of asylum issues

5.1 Media reporting on asylum is inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate, which ultimately causes confusion, and at worst, serious and sometimes misplaced concern. Use of inaccurate terms such as ‘illegal asylum seekers’ can cause misunderstanding to the public. As well as factual inaccuracy, misplaced emphasis can also serve to create a distorted picture and an increasingly negative public perception of the issue. For example, the media rarely highlights the fact that asylum seekers make up a very small proportion of the overall migrant population. Other—much larger—migrant groups include EU nationals exercising treaty rights to reside in the UK and non-EU nationals working through the points based system. In 2011, approximately 5% of the total population of North West England were estimated to be non-UK nationals. By comparison, as at end of 2011, supported asylum seekers comprised approximately 0.01% of the total North West population.324 We question whether asylum would be such a subject of public concern if the issue were contextualised accurately in the media.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The comments above are based on our view that it is possible to combine an effective asylum regime with a humanitarian approach. We look forward to publication of the report of the Inquiry and hope its findings and recommendations will serve to further this aim.

John Horgan
Policy and Development Officer
North West Regional Strategic Migration Partnership

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013