RE: Parliamentary inquiry on the destitution of asylum seeking families

RE: Parliamentary inquiry on the destitution of asylum seeking families 1. Still Human Still Here is a coalition of more than 50 organisations that are seeking to end the destitution of asylum seekers in the UK. The coalition includes the British Red Cross, Crisis, Doctors of the World, Mind, Citizens Advice Bureau, National Aids Trust, OXFAM, Amnesty International and all the main agencies working with refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. 1.1 The Government defines an asylum seeker as destitute if they do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it or if they cannot meet their other essential living needs, such as food, clothing and toiletries. 1.2 The Government states that no person who has sought our protection need be destitute whilst waiting for an application to be decided. However, the evidence below indicates that asylum seeking families, including those waiting for an initial decision on their application, cannot meet their basic subsistence needs on the support provided. This is clearly not consistent with a policy of promoting the welfare and best interests of children. Asylum seeking families on Section 95 support 2. Asylum seeking families who would otherwise be destitute can access Section 95 support (named after the relevant Section of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act). Prior to 1999, asylum support was set at 90% of Income Support on the basis that the support was for a short period of time (i.e. while their application is being decided). In 1999, the Government reduced the level of support from 90% to 70% and justified this reduction because asylum seekers who were being accommodated no longer had to pay their utilities bills. 2.1 While the rationale for reduced payments remains unchanged, support rates have been further reduced in recent years and some asylum seeking families now receive significantly less than 70% of Income Support. For example, in 2011-12, a couple with one child received on average 66% of Income Support and a lone parent with one child received on average 64% of Income Support. 1 2.2 Furthermore, there was a 5.2% rise to Income Support payments for 2012-13, in line with the increase in the cost of living, but the Government did not provide any increment to asylum support for the current financial year. Consequently asylum support levels have been further reduced in real terms making it even more difficult for families to survive. 1 Averages are used as support payments differ depending on the age of the child. For details see the Children s Society, Highlighting the gap between asylum support and mainstream benefits, 2012. 1

2.3 The Government maintains that the current level of support is sufficient to lift asylum seekers out of destitution. However, even in 2009, before significant cuts were made to asylum support levels, a survey of Refugee Actions clients who were on Section 95 support found that: 50% had experienced hunger as a result of the low levels of support; 65% could not travel to an appointment with their legal representative; 70% were unable to buy the toiletries or sanitary products they needed; and 94% were unable to buy clothing. Of the six lone parents interviewed 50% could not afford enough food for their children and 100% were unable to buy their children clothes they needed. 2 2.4 In 2010, Still Human Still Here calculated that once support levels drop below 70% of Income Support, asylum seekers will not be able to meet their essential living needs of food, clothing and toiletries and pursue their asylum application. 3 As stated above, the current level of support for many asylum seekers is well below this level and over a period of time this will have a negative impact on the mental and physical health of asylum seekers and their families (for more details see Impacts of destitution and the vulnerability of families below). 2.5 The Government has not provided an adequate explanation of how it has calculated of the cost of essential living needs for asylum seekers or why it has reduced this level in recent years. 2.6 It is clearly reasonable to reduce asylum support if utility bills are paid for separately, although the level of this deduction should be calculated in a transparent and fair way. However, the argument that asylum seekers needs are less because they are only here for a short period is highly debatable. Many asylum seekers arrive in the UK without essential items which they need to purchase (e.g. appropriate clothing). It is particularly difficult to argue that children s needs will be different depending on the time period they are in the UK. However, even if this argument was accepted then it would stand to reason that payments should be increased if an application has not been resolved after a short period (e.g. two months). Currently more than 3,000 asylum seekers have been waiting more than six months for an initial decision. Asylum seeking families on Section 4 support 3. Families with children whose applications have been rejected should continue to receive Section 95 support except when they have had children after their claim is refused. These families may be able to receive Section 4 support if the Government accepts that they would otherwise be destitute and that they temporarily cannot return home through no fault of their own (e.g. they are too sick to travel, there is no route of return to their country or they are actively engaged in voluntarily return). 2 Refugee Action Briefing, 2009. The survey was based on a random sample of 16 individuals who were receiving S95 support and visited the one stop service between 14-25 September 2009. 3 This calculation was based on the budget of basic goods compiled by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of their research for minimum income standards in Britain, but then removed all items that would not be considered essential to avoid absolute poverty. Still Human Still Here, At the end of the line, 2010, p 34. 2

3.1 In April 2012, 779 children were receiving Section 4 support. 4 While there is no difference between the living needs of those on Section 95 and those on Section 4, families on Section 4 are much worse off. For example, a lone parent would receive the equivalent of 42% of Income Support and a pregnant woman would get just 57%. 5 This is of particularly concern given that refugee and asylum seeking women account for 12 per cent of maternal deaths while only representing 0.3 per cent of the population. 6 3.2 In addition, Section 4 support is delivered through the Azure plastic payment card rather than in cash, and the card can only be used in certain retailers, which prevents asylum seekers from getting the best value for money as they cannot use it in markets or discount stores. It also means that they have no cash to make phone calls or take buses. 3.4 The additional hardship suffered by families on Section 4 is particularly unreasonable given that the Government itself has recognized that the individuals concerned are temporarily unable to return to their countries of origin through no fault of their own. Asylum seeking families without any support 4. Some asylum seeking families find themselves without any statutory support. This commonly happens because UKBA refuses support on the basis that they do not believe the applicant is destitute; there are delays in processing the support application and providing support; or because a child was born after an asylum application was refused. 4.1 UKBA s decision to refuse support is overturned on appeal in more than 40% of cases. This rises significantly when asylum seekers are represented at hearings. A review of 55 cases in which asylum seekers were represented by ASAP found that where applicants were refused because UKBA thought they were not destitute, around 80% won their appeals. 7 4.2 Delays in processing asylum support applications also lead to families becoming destitute. In 2011, Refugee Action reported that vulnerable applicants (such as the street homeless) wait on average 8 or 9 days for UKBA to decide whether to offer support. For those granted support there can be a further delay of several weeks before they can access this support or accommodation. The Refugee Council also reported delays of about four weeks for clients who applied for Section 95 or Section 98 support. 4 House of Lords Hansard, Minister of State Lord Henley s written answer, 22 June 2012. 5 The Children s Society, Highlighting the gap between asylum support and mainstream benefits, 2012. 6 G. Lewis (ed) The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Childs Health (CEMACH), London, 2007. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also published similar findings noting that are pregnant asylum seeking women are seven times more likely to develop complications during childbirth and three times more likely to die than the general population. Quoted in Faculty for Public Health, The health needs of asylum seekers, 2008. 7 ASAP, No credibility: UKBA decision making and Section 4 Support, April 2011, pages 3 and 8. 3

4.3 The Asylum Support Appeals Project found that applications for Section 4 support regularly had to wait more than two weeks for a decision and, of a sample reviewed, 30 applicants had to wait between two and 21 weeks. 8 4.4 These delays mean that asylum seekers, including families with children, have often been destitute for significant periods of time prior to accessing Section 95 or Section 4 support. Many will consequently have greater needs in relation to health, clothing and toiletries. However, delayed support payments are not backdated. 4.5 The problem of delays is equally relevant to those asylum seekers who have been granted protection in the UK, but have their asylum support cut off before they can access the mainstream benefits system or have their documents which allow them to work in this country. 4.6 A Serious Case Review published by Westminster Safeguarding Children Board in 2012, highlighted this problem. The Review looked at a case of a vulnerable and socially isolated asylum seeker from Africa who developed a rare brain infection and could not look after her child. The baby boy starved to death and the mother died two days later. 4.7 The family moved home six times in five years, first in the Midlands and then in Westminster. The report stated that significant problems in the transition from NASS to mainstream support in both places meant the family became dependent upon ad hoc payments by local agencies which must have added to Mrs G s anxiety and consequently to her difficulty in managing her children and their collective health needs. It went on to note that the requirement to actually become homeless before the local authority or Benefits Agency could assist her left Mrs G in an extremely uncertain position. In its recommendations the review expressed concern about the adverse consequences on vulnerable children and the resulting additional pressure on local professional agencies which are triggered in the transitional period between withdrawal of support by the National Asylum Support Agency and entitlement to benefits. 4.8 The adverse consequences referred to in the review are likely to be felt by all vulnerable asylum seeking families with children who are left without support for a period of time. 4.9 Another Serious Case Review into the death of a refused asylum seeker noted that her circumstances facing removal, having a life threatening illness, caring for a young child with few support networks would challenge any individuals coping strategies and the need for high levels of support for someone with such vulnerabilities was clear but not picked up due to multiple errors in information sharing. The review identifies the loss in continuity in medical care due to her frequent moves to different part of the country as a major factor leading to the woman s death and her child needing to be looked after. It also underlined the findings of a research study of 40 serious case reviews which found that almost half of the families were highly mobile and living in poor conditions. Asylum seeking families are clearly a group which fits this risk profile. 8 ASAP, No Credibility: UKBA decision making and Section 4 Support, April 2011, page 9. 4

The impacts of destitution and the vulnerability of families 5. The current asylum support policy is leaving families without sufficient income to meet their essential living needs, while prohibiting them from working to support themselves. British Red Cross projects are frequently approached by asylum seeking families, including those on either Section 95 or Section 4 support, who cannot afford basic personal hygiene products, clothing, food required for a healthy diet or travel expenses to essential appointments. The following case studies, from April 2012, are illustrative of the type of difficulties facing asylum seeking families: 5.1 Y is a mother in a family of four with two young children. They were dispersed to Norwich under Section 4. They live approximately three miles from the city centre where there is a large Tescos and other services. The family is not able to buy bus tickets to get into town to do their shopping and have to walk an hour and a half each way in order to visit the Red Cross office. 5.2 X is a mother from Algeria who came to the UK in 2010 with her four year old daughter. The daughter is being treated for a congenital heart defect at the Royal Brompton Hospital. She receives Section 95 support, but struggles to pay for travel to the hospital appointments as she lives in Thamesmead and has to travel to Chelsea. The additional cost of traveling to her solicitor in Southall has meant she has only been once. 5.3 Z is a pregnant asylum seeker. She receives Section 95 support, but approached a Red Cross project in Wales for assistance with food, toiletries and bus fares so that she could travel to the hospital for antenatal care. 5.4 Families who are unable to meet their essential living needs are also likely to experience a higher incidence of physical and mental health problems, with consequent pressures on the NHS. The Royal College of Psychiatrists noted that The psychological health of refugees and asylum seekers currently worsens on contact with the UK asylum system. 9 Mind also concluded that Restrictive policies on healthcare, education, accommodation, welfare support and employment are functioning to socially exclude and marginalise refugees and asylum-seekers, both exacerbating existing mental health problems and causing mental distress. 10 5.5 Evidence from service providers also indicates that substantial numbers of supported asylum seekers are presenting with health problems. In 2011, Refugee Action found that 206 individuals raised issues related to Section 4 and health problems in casework sessions or were identified by the caseworker as having a physical or mental health problem. This is very high given that only 2,310 people were on S4 at the end of 2011 and approximately 20% of this total would be children. 9 The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), Improving services for refugees and asylum seekers: position statement, Summer 2007. 10 Mind, A Civilised Society: Mental health provision for refugees and asylum-seekers in England and Wales, 2009. 5

5.6 Asylum seeking families who have no form of statutory support are clearly going to be most at risk of negative health impacts. For example, research carried out in 2012 on the experiences of 67 women who had been refused asylum found that two thirds had been left without any means of support or accommodation. Of the full sample, 97% said they were depressed and 63% said they had thought about killing themselves. 11 5.7 Most surveys will underestimate the number of asylum seekers who have mental health issues because very few will report or admit to this type of problem. However, in a survey of 115 destitute asylum seekers conducted in Scotland in 2012, interviewees were asked to respond to questions from the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. The results from this indicated that 23% of the survey group had mental health issues. In the wider population average scores of around 51 would be expected, but the average score for the asylum seeking interviewees was only 30 lower than scores found in a qualitative study with women survivors of domestic abuse. 12 5.8 This Scottish survey was carried out by interviewing asylum seekers using 11 advice and support services during one week in March and it identified a total of 148 destitute people when dependents are included. Of this total 26 (18%) were either children or pregnant women. 13 5.9 Another survey of refused asylum seekers, this time visiting seven support agencies in Bradford, identified 66 individuals as being destitute (without statutory support and either street homeless or staying with others only on a temporarily basis) and 10 of these (15%) were dependent children. 14 These two recent surveys indicate that families with children do make up a significant percentage of destitute asylum seekers. 5.10 Information from the Refugee Survival Trust also shows that 128 families with children, 21 pregnant women and 25 new mothers, who were destitute at some stage in the asylum process, were awarded small emergency grants between 2009-2012 out of a total of 1,849 grants (9%). 15 5.11 Destitution also forces asylum seekers, including families, to find other survival strategies like illegal work, prostitution and begging all of which put the individuals at risk and also have social and financial consequences for the wider community. Would greater levels of support lead to increased asylum applications? 6. Research commissioned by the Home Office into why people claim asylum in the UK showed that asylum seekers have limited control over their route or final destination. Furthermore, it showed that before asylum seekers arrive they have little knowledge of 11 Women for Refugee Women, Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK, May 2012. 12 Morag Gillespie, Trapped: Destitution and Asylum in Scotland, September 2012, page 41. 13 Morag Gillespie, Trapped: Destitution and Asylum in Scotland, September 2012. 14 Destitution Concern Bradford, No Return No Asylum The extent and impact of destitution amongst asylum seekers in Bradford, August 2012. The survey was carried out between 11 June and 13 July 2012. 15 Morag Gillespie, Trapped: Destitution and Asylum in Scotland, September 2012. 6

UK asylum procedures, entitlements to benefits, the availability of work, or how UK policies compare to those of other EU countries. Where individuals do exercise some choice, the existence of family and friends, an ability to speak English or previous links to Britain are the main motivators for coming to the UK. 16 6.1 More recent studies have confirmed these findings 17 including a review of the 19 main recipient countries for asylum applications in the OECD in 2011 18 which concluded that policies which relate to the welfare of asylum seekers (e.g. support levels, permission to work and access to healthcare) did not impact on the number of applications made in destination countries. 6.2 The UK s own experience confirms these findings. In 1996 and 1999, the UK introduced a raft of restrictive legislative and policy measures in relation to the asylum determination procedures and support provisions. However, the number of asylum applications continued to rise despite these measures. 19 6.3 In particular, the UK Government introduced lower levels of support through a cashless system in 1999 with the aim of reducing the number of asylum applications. Following the implementation of the voucher system, applications increased in 2000 and peaked at over 80,000 in 2002. Vouchers were abandoned in 2002 and cash support reinstated, after which asylum applications steadily declined to 23,430 in 2007 and have remained at similar levels in subsequent years. This clearly shows that cash benefits are not an incentive for making asylum claims in the UK. 6.4 Similarly, in 2003, Section 4 support was introduced for refused asylum seekers who could not return home through no fault of their own. Section 4 is a cashless form of support and is worth less than Section 95. It is designed to communicate to asylum seekers that they are at the end of process and should go home. In 2007, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that Section 4 stigmatises refused asylum seekers and does not adequately provide for basic living needs, but also found that There is no evidence that the voucher system encourages refused asylum seekers to leave the UK. 20 This is confirmed by the statistics which show the numbers on S4 steadily increased following its introduction to reach 5,145 in 2005, 9,141 in 2007, and 11,655 in 2009. Once again, reducing the level of support and paying it though a non-cash system did not encourage refused asylum seekers to return home. 16 V.Robinson, Understanding the decision-making of asylum seekers, University of Wales, July 2002 17 Thielemann, E. PD12: How effective are migration and non-migration policies that affect forced migration?, Foresight, 2011 http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/migration/science-reviews/11-1135-sr16-new-technologies-monitoring-migration-flows.pdf 18 Hatton, T. Seeking Asylum: Trends and policies in the OECD, Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2011. 19 Hatton, T. Seeking Asylum Trends and policies in the OECD, Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2011. 20 Joint Committee on Human Rights (2007) The treatment of asylum seekers, Vol. 1, Report and formal minutes http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/81i.pdf 7

6.5 The UK Government has generally argued that progressive policies in relation to support, healthcare and granting permission to work would act as pull factors to the UK and lead to increased numbers of asylum seekers. The evidence quoted above shows that this is not the case and this is reinforced by the fact that the Netherlands receives much fewer asylum applications than the UK despite having a more generous asylum support system and allowing applicants to work six months earlier than the UK. Similarly, France has a less generous system than the UK, but received nearly twice as many asylum applications in 2011. 6.6 The principle reason for this is that the vast majority of asylum seekers leave their countries because of a genuine fear for their safety. This is reflected in the fact that in 2010, seven out of the ten nationalities with the highest number of asylum applicants in the 44 industrialised countries also made the most asylum applications in the UK. These countries included Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Iran and Sri Lanka. However, variables like historic/cultural links between countries and existing family or community in the country of destination are also important. Thus, Zimbabweans and Sudanese were part of the ten top asylum seeking nationalities in the UK in 2010, but not in the list of the 44 industrialised countries. Similarly, France had a higher number of Haitians and Germany of Kosovans than other industrialised countries. Proposed policy solutions 7. There is less pressure on the asylum system now than there has been for 20 years. Applications were under 20,000 in both 2010 and 2011, the lowest levels since 1989. Around 70% of applications were from single adults. The UK can afford to provide asylum seeking families with sufficient support to meet their basic living needs while they await the resolution of their cases. It also has a duty to ensure that the best interests of these children are protected. In view of the above, Still Human Still Here urges the Government to implement the following recommendations as a matter of urgency: Asylum support rates should be equivalent to at least 70% of Income Support. Support rates for all families with children which are currently below this level should be increased up to 70% of Income Support as a matter of priority. Section 4 should be abolished and all those eligible for this support should be maintained on Section 95 support. Annual increments for asylum support rates should be linked to annual increments to Income Support rates, including for the current 2012-13 financial year. Asylum seekers who have not had their cases resolved in 6 months or who have been refused, but cannot be removed through no fault of their own should be granted permission to work. For further information contact Mike Kaye, Advocacy Manager for Still Human Still Here on 020 7033 1600 or mike.kaye@amnesty.org.uk 8