Scottish Refugee Council
The second piece of evidence today is from the Scottish Refugee Council. James Mackenzie and Sally Daghlian will outline some of their concerns about the impact of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Sally Daghlian (Scottish Refugee Council):
Thank you for inviting us to give evidence to the committee today. We are pleased that the committee is taking an interest in refugee issues. Refugees and asylum seekers are one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society. They face many difficulties, including discrimination, racism, physical attacks and disadvantage in accessing basic services. That is compounded by language barriers, issues relating to social origin, a lack of information on, and knowledge about, the systems in the UK, and isolation.
Today, we want to raise your awareness of refugee issues and highlight some specific equal opportunities issues. We also wish to look at the implications of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and suggest some ways in which the committee might ensure the promotion of equal opportunities for refugees.
I will quickly explain what the Scottish Refugee Council does. We provide advice, information, legal representation and practical support to asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland. We work strategically to promote good practice in refugee settlement, and to encourage appropriate policy development in local authorities, Government departments and other agencies. We campaign on refugee issues and aim to ensure that Scotland meets its legal and humanitarian obligations towards refugees.
Before we look at the specifics of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, it might be useful to refresh people's minds on the definition of a refugee. The legal definition of a refugee comes from the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees and the 1967 protocol on refugees, which form the basis of international refugee law. The UK is a signatory to the convention and played a key role in drafting it. According to the convention, a refugee is any person who
"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
The right to seek asylum is enshrined in the 1948 UN declaration of human rights. An asylum seeker is a person who has applied for recognition as a refugee under the convention. Someone who has been recognised in the UK as a refugee has indefinite leave to remain here, and eventually can apply for citizenship. The UN convention on refugees states that a refugee should be treated no less favourably than any other citizen.
Refugees come to Scotland from many different countries—and from different backgrounds, religions and social origins—and face similar difficulties to other ethnic minorities in Scotland, but with added and specific difficulties relating to their experiences as refugees. In particular, refugees have often experienced and witnessed severe violence. All have lost a great deal and suffer grief in exile. There are specific difficulties faced by different groups of refugees, from women refugees to elderly refugees, to young unaccompanied refugees and torture victims.
The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will have a great impact on asylum seekers in Scotland. Despite the fact that immigration and asylum are reserved matters, the act is a question for the Scottish Parliament and this committee. I remind the committee that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has amended five pieces of Scottish legislation that cover devolved areas: the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1985. All the amendments exclude asylum seekers from some of the provisions of those acts.
Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, up to 6,000 asylum seekers a year will be dispersed to Scotland, which the Home Secretary has designated as a cluster region. Dispersal will significantly alter the long-term make-up of the ethnic minority communities in Scotland; they will grow and become much more diverse. Dispersal will have implications for education, health, housing and other services.
Home Office statistics show that 63 per cent of decisions made on asylum applications in 1999 were positive, so many refugees will be citizens here long term. The dispersal policy is part of a longer-term integration and settlement strategy. The Government wants people who are granted refugee status to remain in the regions to which they are dispersed.
We have particular concerns about the proposed support arrangements for asylum seekers, which will have an impact on people's long-term ability to settle and integrate. Under the act, a new Government agency—the national asylum support service—will be set up to administer a means-tested support system. Destitute asylum seekers will be dispersed across the United Kingdom on a no-choice basis without account being taken of any family or community support.
Support will be provided through a package of vouchers and cash. Only £10 cash will be provided per person per week. The total package will be equivalent to only 70 per cent of income support, even after the provision of utilities as part of the support package is taken into account.
There are many problems with the voucher system. Vouchers stigmatise and are degrading and experience shows that they are likely to lead to community relations problems. In England, vouchers have been in use for asylum seekers since 1996. Asylum seekers have regularly suffered abuse and humiliation when using vouchers. Vouchers do not allow asylum seekers to get best value. That is discrimination as it restricts where asylum seekers are entitled to shop.
The support system was devised to be used for short periods. The Government target for decisions on applications for asylum was six months, but decisions are now taking an average of 27 months and we see no prospect of that being speeded up.
The support system contradicts directly Government policy on social inclusion and equal opportunities. Specifically, the system will result in social exclusion, stigmatisation and marginalisation of one section of the community. It is the first time in Scotland that one particular group has been excluded from social welfare provisions. The move will have an impact not only on asylum seekers, but on the wider refugee and ethnic minority communities. Asylum seekers will live in extreme poverty, unable to participate in normal community activities. They will have a lack of opportunities and will be forced to rely on already disadvantaged ethnic minority communities for support.
We are very concerned about the potential impact on children. The system may lead to breaches of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Scottish Refugee Council and Save the Children intend to investigate that further.
Access to services for asylum seekers will be difficult, not only because they will be excluded from some services, but because of the language barriers and lack of sensitivity among service providers that asylum seekers and refugees experience.
Interpreters and translation services are vital to ensuring equality of opportunity. Many service providers, such as general practitioners, are not required or funded to provide interpreters for people who do not speak English. That leads to reliance on friends, family members and unqualified interpreters and raises questions of confidentiality and accuracy of diagnosis and treatment. Access to interpreting of minority languages in Scotland is also limited.
Certain groups of refugees, such as female refugees, might face additional problems because of misunderstandings relating to culture, religion and not knowing that services specifically for women exist.
Asylum seekers and refugees face racial harassment. Previous refugee settlement in Scotland, particularly the Vietnamese and Chilean programmes, has shown that refugees will be isolated and targeted for racial abuse if they are settled in inappropriate areas. The stigmatisation of asylum seekers through the voucher system and the inappropriate placement of asylum seekers—for example, in areas of multiple deprivation—are likely to lead to harassment and abuse.
Dispersal without community education to ensure that the host population understands the needs and problems of asylum seekers is likely to lead to local tension, hostility and abuse. That has been the case in many areas in England. Already, there has been some inaccurate and negative press reporting about dispersal in Glasgow, which has resulted in some hostile community response.
Another area of concern is policing. A recent "Newsnight" report from Wales suggested that, despite the Macpherson report, police officers do not always deal with crimes against ethnic minorities appropriately. Dispersal of refugees to Scotland has implications for police officers, who must be trained to deal with asylum seekers, many of whom have had exceptionally negative experiences of state authorities and police. Again, access to interpreting is key to ensuring equal access to protection and justice.
Asylum seekers are here because they need protection under the UN convention of human rights. Access to legal advice and representation and, therefore, access to justice are areas of concern. Asylum seekers need specialist legal advice. Very few legal practitioners work on this area in Scotland and dispersed asylum seekers will have difficulties accessing appropriate legal advice, which might mean that they do not receive the protection they need. Survey evidence suggests that 30 per cent of people who are legally represented win their appeal, which contrasts with a 6 per cent average for success at appeals.
Asylum seekers coming to Scotland will be expected by the immigration department to travel to Croydon for their asylum interview. That will seriously disadvantage asylum seekers living in Scotland as their legal representatives will not be able to attend those crucial interviews with them.
Refugee children have suffered particular disruption and trauma and require sensitive induction to school and learning support to enable them to understand new systems and learn English. Teachers and schools need to have an understanding of background issues. Experience in England suggests that negative stereotyping and teachers' low expectations can hold back refugee children.
For the successful integration of adults, the keys are English language and employment. Many refugees are highly skilled and highly qualified yet face financial and other hurdles in their efforts to requalify or train. Research among Scottish Refugee Council clients show that 60 per cent of asylum seekers and refugees have a degree, diploma or professional qualification, yet many of them are long-term unemployed. That research is backed up by the Home Office's own research throughout the UK.
Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which makes it a criminal offence to employ anyone who does not have permission to work in the UK, leads to discrimination against refugees, asylum seekers and ethnic minorities. Other agencies have suggested that it is leading to whites-only policies among employers. Employers are often unaware of the different types of permission to work, and therefore wary of employing refugees. That denies individuals the opportunity to work and it denies society the contribution that they might make.
How can this committee help? We suggest that it can do several things. First, it could monitor discrimination and harassment experienced by refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland. Secondly, it could review the impact on equal opportunities of existing legislation in devolved areas such as housing, education, health, social work, legal aid and access to local government services. That could be done by requesting reports from the Scottish Executive as well as through taking evidence from refugee organisations.
We suggest that the committee could also make representations to the Home Office about the equal opportunities implications of existing legislation on reserved matters, such as in the areas of asylum decision-making and dispersal. The committee could ensure that any legislation that comes before this Parliament does not increase the risk of discrimination against refugees and asylum seekers. It could also make legislative proposals to reduce existing discrimination and promote equal opportunities for refugees and asylum seekers.
Thank you, Sally. James, do you have anything to add at this stage?
James Mackenzie (Scottish Refugee Council):
No.
You mentioned the need for host communities to provide community education. Are you aware of any Home Office or Scottish Executive plans to carry out such education campaigns?
We are not aware of any such plans. The Home Office has recommended that the regional consortia that are to oversee the dispersal of asylum seekers should develop media strategies, but we are not aware that anyone has made any specific plans.
You may not be aware that the Local Government Committee intends to address the impact of dispersal on the demands on local government services. A lot of what has been said will be of help when we come to address that.
Can you clarify from which services people are excluded by legislation, rather than by default because they are not given the support necessary to access services? You talked about the problems that emerge when people are inappropriately placed. What is your definition of appropriate placing? What kinds of support would there need to be before somewhere could be defined as reasonable for us to place refugees?
The Government has suggested that asylum seekers should be placed only in areas in which there are ethnic minority communities, so that those people can access support, and only where there is an infrastructure of voluntary and other support, or the potential to develop an infrastructure of support, that will ensure that people have access to services such as legal support.
One of our biggest concerns is that, although those suggestions are being made and many documents indicate that people should take them into consideration when they are contracting with the Home Office to house asylum seekers in their area, the legislation says only that the Home Secretary must have regard to the availability of housing.
Over the past few months, under the interim dispersal scheme, the availability of housing has become the driving factor. People have been placed in extremely inappropriate areas, such as small, rural communities, where there is no access to English-language classes, for example. They are very visible in such areas and the local population is often hostile. The evidence gathered over many years has shown that refugees find it easier to live in cities and towns than in small villages. They need to be where there are other ethnic minority communities and where they have access to services.
We are still waiting for clarification about some of the specific changes to the legislation. The regulations are going to be laid before Parliament next month. The changes under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 exclude asylum seekers from being able to access specialist housing services for people who have experienced mental health difficulties, for example. That is a concern because often refugees have experienced mental health difficulties. Our understanding is that, if a refugee who ended up in an acute state was hospitalised and then required to be discharged to supported accommodation, that could not happen because of the new support arrangements.
The new legislation amends the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and excludes asylum seekers from the provisions that allow local authorities to make cash payments to people to promote social welfare. The legislation restricts the ability of local authorities to make judgments about people's needs and to support them in those needs.
There is a specific concern about the so-called hard cases in that the replacement system under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 does not apply. The national asylum support service will provide the vouchers to people whom it deems eligible. However, a negative decision means that a person is taken out of the system. If the refugee cannot be removed from the country because they are a hard case—because they are seriously unwell or pregnant—NASS may not provide money and, under destitution legislation, local authorities are also prohibited from providing money.
Does that mean that children and young people would be particularly vulnerable? Is that group excluded from social services provision?
At the moment, homeless asylum-seeking families with children would be accommodated under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. After the implementation of the changes, that will no longer be possible, because asylum-seeking families will be housed only through the new Government agency. That means that if a homeless asylum-seeking family turns up at a social work department, the department will still have broad duties towards the children under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, but will not be allowed to house them. Social work departments might find that they are forced to decide whether to take the children into care or to house people illegally.
One of the other areas that you highlighted was employment. The law says that an employer cannot take on someone who does not have permission to work, yet employers are not always aware that there are different levels of permission. Could you expand on what those different levels of permission are, and on how access could be granted rather than denied?
Without going into all the technicalities—which I would not be able to do—there are employment permits and so on to consider. The permission that an asylum seeker needs to work is different. Unlike an employment permit, it is not related to a specific job.
One difficulty is that the documentation that asylum seekers receive from the Home Office can differ; different asylum seekers may have different pieces of paper. The documents are often scrappy and poorly photocopied, which can make employers sceptical. Employers do not know what they are looking for.
When the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was introduced, Jack Straw pledged to repeal the measures about the requirement to gain permission to work. The matter is a real concern. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality has long seen that requirement as something that encourages employers to consider whites-only policies. Employers are instantly worried if they see a foreign name. They do not know the status of the applicant; they do not want either to break the law or to have the added work of checking out someone's status.
I wanted clarification on whether support will be in the form of a packet of vouchers and £10 cash per person. How often is the £10 provided?
Once a week.
And the vouchers are for different services?
The vouchers may be exchanged in shops for food or clothing.
You are obviously against that system. You—or Kent County Council—are saying that it is three and a half times more expensive than a cash system. Are not the vouchers issued because a lot of asylum seekers have problems with language? At least the voucher states what it is for, whereas people might not get the services that they need if they just get cash—the cash might be used in the wrong way. Would you agree with that?
I see it the other way round. Vouchers are more difficult for people to understand, whereas cash is universal. People understand what money is and how it can be exchanged for services and goods. People can therefore access all that is on offer.
Vouchers are much more difficult for people to understand, particularly if they do not have a good grasp of English. They have to understand that they can use them only in some places. There are complications—people cannot get change, for example, and have to shop for goods to the total value of the vouchers. The experience of the use of vouchers over the past few years in England has been very negative.
In particular, vouchers can cause community-relations problems. For example, someone in a supermarket may have a voucher. If they do not speak English very well and are trying to exchange the voucher with a cashier, the cashier will, in time-honoured English tradition, tend to speak louder, although the person does not understand. The whole queue can hear what is going on. People become irritated, as they do in such situations. Although it is difficult for the asylum seeker to understand what is happening, they certainly feel humiliated and stigmatised.
I have had a similar experience. I remember going to Russia, in 1969 I think. I had to use a voucher system and I found it very complicated. On the subject of the cash, are you suggesting that the voucher system be dispensed with altogether and that the cash equivalent be given out?
Asylum seekers used to be entitled to welfare benefits. We think that that is cheaper, more efficient and in the asylum seeker's interests. The £10 cash is intended to cover all incidental needs, including bus fares and telephone calls. We are not yet clear about where the vouchers will be used, although we are only a few weeks away from the introduction of the system. We do not know which shops people will be able to use. We also think that £10 is inadequate.
You say that, under NASS, up to 6,000 asylum seekers will be dispersed to Scotland every year. Is that 6,000 individuals or 6,000 family units?
I think that it is 6,000 principal asylum seekers, so it could include more individuals. Usually, the Home Office counts the principal asylum seeker. However, most asylum seekers are single people; there are fewer families.
Would those who decide that one person is coming to Scotland and another is going to London have regard to family relationships, so that people in the same family are not sent to different parts of the United Kingdom? Would they try to keep families and relatives together?
We understand that they would not. The legislation states that the Home Secretary can have no regard to the asylum seeker's preference. Under the interim dispersal schemes that are being implemented, people have been separated from their families. Members of the committee may have seen a "Panorama" programme recently that showed the difficulties of an asylum-seeking family who had arrived in London and had relatives there, but were promptly bussed off to Liverpool. Until the bus pulled away from London, those people did not understand that they were being sent to another city.
In your submission, you say:
"Destitute asylum seekers will be dispersed across the UK on a no-choice basis",
irrespective of family commitments and so on. Surely that is a harsh and unsympathetic way of handling people.
Yes.
If the family is broken up, that adds to the trauma that the asylum seekers are experiencing.
We agree. One of our concerns is that some people will choose not to be dispersed, because they would rather stay in places where there are people whom they know. We may as a result find that many asylum seekers end up homeless. People may be able to stay with relatives or other members of the community for a short time—we have experience of refugees who will sleep on somebody's floor rather than be sent to another town—but if they have to wait for a decision on their asylum claim for 27 months, that can become very difficult. We think that more asylum seekers will become homeless and that other agencies and local authorities will not be able to help them because of the restrictions in the legislation.
Do you think that there is a danger that asylum seekers may be housed in areas where housing is hard to let? Would that concern you?
It would. Local authorities are being encouraged to see using their hard-to-let housing as a way of reducing their void rates. Most empty properties are empty because there are problems with them and because they are in areas where people do not want to live.
You say:
"The legislation specifically prevents asylum seekers from accessing many social welfare provisions."
To which provisions are you referring?
The restrictions affecting the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are significant, as that is an important piece of Scottish legislation that has given local authorities discretion to help people in need. The restrictions on housing deny asylum seekers the opportunity to be housed by local authorities and to choose where they live.
However, all the changes are significant, and we will not really know what they mean and what the difficulties will be until the legislation comes into force. For example, what will happen to an asylum seeker in hospital who might need to be discharged to supported accommodation which cannot be provided? Will they have to remain inappropriately detained in hospital, or will they be sent out into inappropriate accommodation, thereby risking rehospitalisation or perhaps posing a danger to other people?
There has been a promise to review the act after a specific period; it will be important to keep an eye on that.
That review is critical and it is important for us to monitor what happens in the 18 months until the Executive reviews the act. Although I am not clear about the form that the review process will take, I imagine that this committee will take evidence from organisations that are involved. We hope to establish a monitoring and research project with another organisation to find out what happens to people, where they end up, whether they get the services that they need and whether other conventions are being breached.
We are certainly concerned that there has not yet been a report about the level of preparedness in Scotland and about the support services that asylum seekers and refugees need. Although we welcome the review in 18 months' time, we are somewhat concerned that, in five weeks' time, many people might be arriving in Scotland and we do not know whether they will have access to appropriate legal support, interpretation and medical services.
Where there is a high concentration of asylum seekers, such as in the south of England, there is no possibility that local authorities will get additional funding from central Government to support them in their efforts to accommodate those people. What is the situation in Scotland? Although we have heard about the same lack of finance, have local authorities made any request to central Government, or even to the Scottish Parliament, for additional funding to support their initiatives?
Many local authorities are still in the very early stages of finding out what is in store and of investigating potential costs. Over the past year or so, representations have been made by the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities. The interim dispersal scheme, which started in December, has realised only a very small amount of accommodation outside London, because local authorities do not think that the figures add up. For example, there is no specific funding for education. The Home Office position is that, as the number of residents and children in any area increases, eventually local authorities will be reimbursed through the normal mechanisms on a per capita basis. However, that does not recognise that many refugee children would need extra support for language provision, for example, particularly in the first years.
Similarly, there is no extra resourcing for health services. Although such funding might also be awarded on a per capita basis, that does not recognise the fact that, among refugees and asylum seekers, there are often people such as torture victims who, given their experiences, run the risk of mental health problems. Furthermore, people often have chronic health problems and illnesses, especially if they have been living in very poor conditions. For example, many of the Kosovan refugees who came to Scotland earlier this year had chronic problems such as diabetes. As some people had not received any medical care in the months before they arrived, there was a heavy demand on health services.
Thank you.
In her evidence, Sally Daghlian outlined a number of requests that she would like the committee to take forward. I would like to make a number of proposals based on those requests and see whether they are acceptable to the committee.
The review of the impact on devolved services was mentioned. We know that the Local Government Committee is examining that, so we should write to it and find out how it intends to take the issue forward and what services it will consider. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Another issue that was raised was whether there was a plan to have an education and information campaign within the host communities that are receiving asylum seekers. I suggest that we write to Iain Gray, who seems to be the minister responsible for replying to questions about this, to ask whether there are any such plans. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Sally Daghlian also mentioned interpreting services and legal representation in relation to policing. Jim Wallace has responsibility for the majority of those services, so we could write to ask him what training the police have undertaken in dealing sensitively with asylum seekers and refugees. We could also ask about the updated position in relation to resources for interpreting services—I know that this committee has raised that issue before. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
The Scottish Executive has made a commitment to monitor the situation and review it in 18 months. I suggest that the committee receives regular updates from the Scottish Refugee Council on the evidence that it receives through its monitoring project. The committee can then consider the situation and the concerns that are being raised. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
We can discuss the frequency of that, but I suggest that three-monthly updates might be appropriate.
The other request was that the committee make representation to the Home Office on the equal opportunities implications of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Is the committee of a mind to make a representation on that? We could include evidence that we have taken, perhaps based on today's submissions, that we could send with a covering letter expressing concern to the Home Office.
We should identify and flag up the implications.
Will we do that and consider this issue at a future meeting, after we have examined the evidence?
Members indicated agreement.
Sally, have I overlooked any issue that you asked the committee to consider?
I request that, when legislation comes before Parliament, the committee considers the equal opportunities issues that it raises for refugees and asylum seekers.
Sally suggests that we consider the impact on asylum seekers and refugees of legislation considered by the Parliament. It would be helpful if the Scottish Refugee Council could highlight any issues in the legislative programme that will affect asylum seekers and refugees and bring them to the attention of the committee. Is the committee minded to agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the witnesses for their thought-provoking presentation. We will maintain contact on the issue of monitoring during the next few months.
Thank you. We apologise for not submitting our written evidence earlier.