Asylum Support (Children and Young People)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I am pleased to have secured this debate, and it is good to see a number of colleagues here, although perhaps not as many as I had hoped; maybe everyone is in Eastleigh this morning. [Interruption.] Perhaps not quite everyone.

It is good to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). He served on the recent cross-party parliamentary panel on the experiences of children and young people in the asylum system, which I chaired. That inquiry, which was supported by the Children’s Society, is the instigator for this debate. The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) had also hoped to be here, but he has a clashing appointment with the Select Committee on Education.

Before I say anything else, I would like to express my gratitude to the Children’s Society for its help and support during the inquiry. I am grateful to see the Minister here; I have had an opportunity to discuss the inquiry with him. I know he has read the report, so I look forward to his response. I also thank the 200 or so individuals and organisations that gave evidence to our inquiry, both in writing and in person. We were very lucky to receive evidence from a range of experts, including local authorities, safeguarding boards and academics, as well as from organisations working directly with young asylum seekers and their families. We also heard from the young people and their families themselves, many of whom came to give evidence in the House of Commons, which was a very moving occasion for many on the panel.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who also served on the panel, has joined us. All the panel would agree that some of the evidence we received was extremely shocking and very upsetting. We found that families are often surviving on as little as £5 a day per person. Parents told us that they often skip meals to pay for basic items and that it is particularly difficult for them to pay for any item, such as a winter coat or shoes, that requires slightly more money. They told us that they are unable to pay for their children’s school trips and uniform, a situation exacerbated by the frequent moves during dispersal and rehousing that affect many families. Birthdays, toys and other things that other families take for granted are another question entirely.

Asylum support rates have fallen way below the poverty line in recent years; they were first set at 90% of income support rates, but it was later agreed that they be set at 70% of income support rates. Successive Governments have failed to uprate those benefits under section 95 and section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, thereby allowing them to fall way beneath the basic level of support that we would consider appropriate for families—that of income support.

As the Minister is aware, no decision has been taken this financial year about uprating section 95 and section 4 support rates, so those benefits have effectively been frozen this financial year without any accountability to Parliament. We have not had an opportunity to question the Minister on why that decision has or has not been taken.

The levels of the benefits are extremely complex and are set differently for children of different ages. For children under 15 without a disability, the levels are significantly less punitive than those set for adults, slightly older children and children with disabilities. Of course, the problem is that families are living on a whole family budget, not just the child’s extra bit of support.

We found that, when the support is added together, a lone parent with a 10-year-old disabled child is living on just a third of income support levels. It is difficult to see how any family can possibly be expected to survive on such small amounts of money. Notwithstanding any deductions for accommodation, which is paid for separately, it is difficult to see how a family can manage for a prolonged period on such small benefit levels.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has set out her stall very well and will surely continue to do so. Like me, was she struck by the great dignity of the people who gave evidence to our inquiry? They were not asking for anything, but, as she argues, they deserve to be treated properly.

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The people who came to speak to us were asking to be treated as human beings, to be allowed to support themselves and to have enough to support their family. They did not whinge, and they were often extremely grateful for what this country has given to enable them to flee to safety from countries that are war-torn or in which they faced persecution.

The people were asking just to be able to survive and to bring up their children well. The stories they told were incredibly distressing. I will address some of the things they said, and I would be grateful if other members of the panel also reported on some of their experiences of listening to those families.

An estimated 10,000 children in the asylum system are supported by these benefits, and many spend substantial portions of their childhood on asylum support. It is not as if the problem affected people for a few weeks but did not have a long-term impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

Education legislation is intended to be blind to a child’s immigration status—in fact, the Government are supposed to be blind to a child’s immigration status full stop. We are signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and it seems to me that the UK Border Agency differentiates between children whose parents are currently in the system, or whose asylum case has failed, and children who have permanent residency.

The rules on education in the UN convention are absolutely clear: children must be provided with education regardless. However, the financial support for which they are eligible is an issue. Does it allow children to grow and flourish as the UNCRC expects? It is not adequate to provide children with barely enough to survive on; the UNCRC is clear that we must provide enough to allow them to develop to their best potential. I argue that the system is inadequate even to allow children’s bare survival. It certainly fails miserably to meet our duties under the UNCRC.

At the moment, a surprisingly large number of children live within the asylum support system. A significantly smaller number of those—probably only about 800—are supported under section 4, but the effects on that small number are disproportionate. We in Government know well what impact poverty has on a child’s life chances. All Ministers have accepted that child poverty significantly damages children’s potential for development, and that idea has cross-party support. That is why so much effort has been devoted to ensuring that we get the data right for counting child poverty, understand the indicators and focus on the causes and impacts of child poverty. I know that well from my time as a Minister at the Department for Education, where the issue was one focus of my work. However, we seem not to be able to take the issue as seriously for children whose asylum cases have not been decided.

The situation is significantly worse for those on section 4 rather than section 95 support. Section 4 support is intended to be short-term. It has been described by previous Ministers as an austere regime intended only for those whose applications have failed but who cannot currently return home. However, it is worth recognising that many children spend years on section 4 support. Although it might be intended for adults to live on for a matter of weeks, many children spend substantial portions of their lives on it—we met families whose children had spent almost all their lives on section 4 support. What makes section 4 support so difficult is not just that levels are significantly lower, but, more specifically, that it is cashless and highly restrictive about where the money can be spent.

[Nic Dakin]

One thing that struck me about the evidence provided to us was the impact of the Azure card. It reduces the effectiveness and value of the small amounts of money that the families and children get. Does the hon. Lady agree that if nothing else needs urgent consideration, the Azure card and the cashless system do, in order to improve things for those families?

[Sarah Teather]

I absolutely agree. Parents said to us that the restrictions on where they could shop meant that things were often more expensive, particularly items such as buggies, which were completely impossible for many families to buy. They would have been much happier to go to the second-hand shop, but of course they cannot use the Azure card there; they are required to go to Mothercare or similar shops. To reflect on my sister-in-law’s experience, buying a buggy at Mothercare costs practically as much as buying a car. I hope that I am not libelling the shop by saying so; I shall probably get letters from Mothercare now. Nevertheless, I think that most people would recognise that such items are extremely expensive. For anyone trying to survive on £5 a day in a cashless system using an Azure card, it makes no financial sense whatever.

Families who want to buy food more in keeping with their own culture find themselves unable to shop in suitable shops. It is particularly difficult for some families that they are expected to walk, sometimes up to 3 miles, in order to go shopping. The idea that a lone parent with several children should walk several miles to use an Azure card to go shopping, carrying the children and luggage back from the supermarket, is completely unreasonable.

Similarly, money on the Azure card cannot be saved from one week to the next, at least in more than very small amounts, so unless all the money is spent during the week, it is effectively wasted. People said that if they are ill and unable to shop, they run out of money and are unable to refill the fridge the following week. If they need a winter coat, they have no possible means of saving up for one. During a winter such as this one, that seems completely unreasonable.

Families also spoke to us about the stigma associated with using the Azure card, which identifies them immediately as asylum seekers. Many spoke distressingly about their experiences of being abused in supermarkets when they produced the card in order to buy their shopping. Sometimes, even after the card had been topped up, it still did not work. It is unreliable, as well as bringing great stigma with it.

The section 4 system seems utterly baffling to me. It is highly expensive to administer given the relatively small number of people involved, and it is a punitive regime that seems disproportionate to the problem that the Government say they are trying to fix. It is worth rehearsing some of the consequences of trying to live under the system.

I had a case in my constituency involving somebody on section 4 support. Those on section 4 support cannot be housed with other relatives; they must be housed in special accommodation. As a consequence, he was separated from his partner and child. As is extremely common, he was not eligible for travel money. The Government have said to me that travel money is available in exceptional cases. Those cases seem to be phenomenally exceptional, because my constituency office has had great difficulty accessing the money when it is needed. That man walked miles across London every day to visit his wife and child, a situation that put intolerable pressure on the child and family. We certainly heard of the reverse situation, where the woman was separated from the father of her child. It makes no logical sense. The Government would save money by allowing people to live with their partners, other relatives or friends, as those on section 95 support may do.

Section 4 support is highly restrictive of what people can buy. One thing that struck me most particularly as a Minister considering the issue was that the regulations expressly forbid the purchase of toys. What a bizarre thing to do. I do not know who thought of it, but it is certainly not compatible with the UNCRC.

For pregnant women and new mothers, the situation can be even more intolerable. Maternity Action and the Refugee Council submitted evidence to us during the inquiry. They have subsequently produced their own report, “When maternity doesn’t matter”, which I will say more about in a moment when I turn to housing. The organisations cited a case in which a woman with no money for a buggy or transport was forced to walk home from hospital in the snow, carrying her newborn baby in her arms, shortly after giving birth. That is a ludicrous and appallingly distressing story.

When I discussed the issue with the Minister previously, he said that he did not believe that the public would tolerate our giving the same amount of support to those whose claims have been rejected as to those still awaiting a decision, but I do not think the public would tolerate the kinds of story that we heard in our inquiry. He underestimates the humanity of the British people if he thinks that that is actually what they want in the asylum support system.

There is a further question about whether such punitive treatment actually has any purpose. It does not make desperate families who fear for their lives return home; it simply leaves them in poverty, jeopardising their health and their children’s long-term development. We saw a case in which somebody left on section 4 support for a very long time was later given refugee status on reapplication. To think that all those people are somehow scamming the system and ought to go home is to miss the point entirely.

It is said that if we raise benefit levels, it will encourage more people to seek asylum here. There is simply no evidence for that. When vouchers were introduced, the number of asylum applications rose. When cash was re-introduced, it fell. There has been plenty of research, which I am happy to share, looking at why people choose a particular country. In most cases, it has much more to do with historical ties between particular countries than with any expected benefits that people might receive when they get to the country. Given the complexity of section 4 and section 95 support—it took us some considerable time to produce the spreadsheet to work out exactly what families in different circumstances would get—it beggars belief that someone in a situation of war, violence or persecution would spend a couple of days researching that on the internet before deciding which travel company to book their flight with. We need to get that into perspective. The answer must surely be to set levels in line with other benefits. Deducting accommodation costs if necessary, we should make a clear commitment to uprate benefits so that people who have fled war, persecution and violence can live —as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe said—a basic, dignified life.

I understand the political difficulties of raising benefit levels for asylum seekers, in particular when there is much debate about wider benefit levels—full stop. Surely it would be more sensible and take an awful lot of political grief away from the Minister if they were simply pegged to other benefit levels and automatically uprated each year. Ministers would then not have to go through the agony of having to work out on which full-news day to introduce a measure; they could simply get on with doing the right and humane thing.

[Sarah Teather]

There have been a number of different changes over time. The previous Government agreed that they would peg asylum support to 70% but almost immediately broke that agreement. The problem with this type of issue is that, because it is politically contentious, successive Ministers in different Governments have found it difficult to tackle, which is why it needs to be done in such a way that they do not have to face the headlines every time something happens. Drafting the legislation so as to allow the support to be uprated automatically would surely take the political headache away from Ministers, allowing them to do the right thing. I do not believe that Ministers from any party would wish to see children pushed into severe poverty. It is a question of ensuring that the administration is such that it can be done easily. I strongly encourage the Minister to take that step.

Logically, section 4 should be abolished, to be replaced by one cash-based system for all people regardless. The existing system costs money, it is inhumane and it serves no purpose. If it was abolished and section 95 applied to everyone, I would be extremely surprised were there any political outcry. The Government have managed to make changes to the immigration system and to abolish child detention without any hue and cry, so I am sure it is not beyond the wit of the Minister to amend section 4 so that people get a decent cash system.

[Nic Dakin]

This is a key point. Moving to a cash-based system is a costless way of improving the system and will respond to the stoicism and dignity of those people by giving their children a better deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Davies, for having to nip out to deal with a constituency issue, but I have been here for most of the debate, and what a good debate it has been. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing it and on building on what has been a very good all-party inquiry into a significant and precise issue. As she said so eloquently in her speech, action can be taken by the Minister—who is a very good Minister—to seize the opportunity and advantage available for a win-win situation.

Most of these children and families come from countries, such as Iran, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan, where violence is endemic and human rights abuses are well documented. Owing to poor-quality decision making by the Home Office on asylum claims, there are consistently high overturn rates on appeal for some countries—for example, for Syria, the rate is 53%; for Sri Lanka, 40%; for Iran, 37%; and for Afghanistan, 30%.

As recent Refugee Council research shows, many families will be refused asylum but may still have protection needs, and they will be too afraid to return to their country of origin. They are left in limbo in the United Kingdom, sadly living in destitution and prohibited from working to support themselves and their children. In general, if a temporary obstacle prevents them from leaving the UK—for example, if they are too sick to travel or if there is no viable route of return—under the section 4 system, they may only live in designated accommodation, and instead of cash, they only receive money to cater for essential living needs on the Azure payment card. As the hon. Lady pointed out, although that is designed as a temporary measure, it can go on for years and, sometimes, as long as a decade or more, which is surely not acceptable.

I want to focus my remarks on the card. It can only be used at designated retail outlets, so people cannot get the best value for money. I think that every hon. Member is committed to systems that allow the delivery of the best value for money, so it is ironic that we have designed something that militates against that. People can only purchase food, essential toiletries and other items up to the value of £35.39 per person per week. We heard from families who reported experiencing frequent technical faults with the card—something that, as the hon. Lady pointed out, can be embarrassing and degrading—and they were not allowed to buy certain items such as condoms or sanitary towels.

Attention can also be drawn to such families, and they can be the victims of abuse. For example, one mother, who had been trafficked for sexual exploitation when she was young and who was living on section 4 support when we spoke to her but has since received refugee status, told the panel how she had been spoken to by another shopper while using the Azure card. The shopper said, “You black monkey, go back to your own country.” These horrific experiences have a profound impact on parents and their children. None of us feels that that racism should be tolerated, and we should not put systems in place that risk that racism taking place.

I was ashamed to hear some of the evidence that we heard. People gave evidence with great dignity and stoicism and no complaining. It left me thinking that we can surely do better and at no extra cost. Indeed, the cost implications of maintaining a two-tier system under section 4, aimed at persuading people to leave the UK, are such that it is not a cost-effective approach. Ultimately, increasing asylum support to bring it in line with mainstream benefits to ensure that children’s needs are met would mean additional costs. However, abandoning the parallel section 4 system could and probably would save money, because it would get rid of an unnecessary and clumsy bureaucracy.

Still Human Still Here estimates that abolishing the parallel support system under section 4 could lead to savings of more than £2 million due to administrative costs and because families would no longer be required to live in designated UK Border Agency accommodation and could remain with friends or relatives, as is the case currently for those on section 95 support. There is an opportunity to save money in times of austerity and to allow money to go further for people who have very little money. It is a win-win opportunity for the Government, and I am sure that this Minister will want to embrace it.

The report recommended that the Government should abolish section 4 support and urgently implement a single cash-based support system for all children and their families who need asylum support while they are in the UK. I hope that all parties in the House will work together with the Government to assist them in bringing that about as soon as possible. The system should include children who were born after an asylum refusal, to ensure that no child is left destitute.

Much more could be said, because of the richness of the evidence that was provided, but I want to focus simply on the cashless payment, which does not make sense in terms of delivering to those who most need it the opportunity to take full advantage of their lives and move things forward; nor does it make sense because of the cost to the UK taxpayer, who is paying for unnecessary bureaucracy. Here is an opportunity to address that and move things forward in a way that benefits everyone.