Here at Ripon City of Sanctuary, the 3 refugee families we support are all Syrian, brought to the UK by the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement (SVPR) scheme – the Cameron government’s 2015 plan to bring 20,000 Syrians to the UK. SVPR is a government resettlement programme, but please note that there is also Community Sponsorship, regulated by the Home Office, which is led by local groups of volunteers. The SVPR scheme has since been merged with some minor schemes and re-labelled the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS).
The government’s Nationality and Borders Bill, which as we write (summer of 2021) is making its way through the House of Commons, effectively seeks to do away entirely with the independent arrival of asylum-seekers to this country, in favour of resettlement schemes alone. While resettlement schemes offer refugees a considerable amount of support, to focus on resettlement alone can never be an effective asylum plan. Let’s look at why we believe this to be the case.
Understanding refugee resettlement
- Let’s say an individual (perhaps a Syrian) flees their country.
- They seek refuge in a safe bordering country, in this case usually Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan, and register there with UNHCR. These countries currently host between 1.3 and 3.7 million refugees each.
- As they struggle to live their lives, this refugee may hope to receive a call from UNHCR one day to say they’re being offered resettlement to another country. If they are, they must get through many rounds of identity, security and medical checks before hopefully being granted resettlement.
- They are then brought to the UK via air travel, paid for by the resettlement scheme, and on arrival they’re already officially classed as refugees – rather than asylum-seekers who would have to apply for refugee status.
- Provision varies by host country, but in the UK this refugee will be provided with accommodation, language classes, a support worker, information and training sessions, and support in setting up their new lives (banking, healthcare, schooling, etc). They’re entitled to access Universal Credit, paid employment, higher education and all healthcare.
- This package of resettlement support ends after 5 years (although they can hold onto their accommodation and can continue to claim benefit if needed), since after 5 years they’re expected to have become independent enough to work. At this point, the Syrian refugee must apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILTR).
What’s the alternative to resettlement?
- Let’s say a different Syrian person decides to flee the country, and might or might not spend time in a third, safe country before heading to the UK to seek asylum. They’re taking their own decisions, and aren’t part of any government-sponsored resettlement scheme. Therefore, they’re classed as an ‘independent’ or ‘spontaneous’ asylum-seeker.
- Under international law, they can arrive in the UK however they like if they then plan to claim asylum on arrival (there’s no such thing in law as an illegal route or an illegal asylum-seeker, so coming by boat or hiding on a truck is acceptable and legal).
- They must claim asylum as soon as they arrive in the UK, and must submit to checks here and wait for a decision from the Home Office as to whether they may remain in the UK with official refugee status. In the meantime, the individual is provided with a tiny financial allowance.
What are the pros and cons of each model in the UK?
Advantages of refugee resettlement (in the UK)
Individuals have a secure and certain opportunity to start a new life.
They arrive with the certainty of refugee status, not as asylum-seekers who might get refused.
They get a package of support, including air travel to the UK.
There is dignity in being officially looked after, having immediate refugee status, and having an immediate right to work.
Being brought here on a flight means individuals don’t have to make perilous journeys or submit to people-smuggling.
Disadvantages of refugee resettlement (in the UK)
Individuals have no control over what happens to them – they are entirely passive and must wait to see if they get a resettlement offer – which could take years, or more likely never come.
Overall, only 0.23% of refugees around the world get resettled. In 2019, that amounted to 63,000 worldwide out of around 24.5 million on the waiting list.
An offer comes with a country attached – people can’t choose which country they go to, or choose to join family already living in another country.
They can only be resettled along with immediate family members, such as spouse or children (usually they must leave parents, adult children and siblings behind).
Resettlement favours family groups so it’s more difficult for widows with children, and virtually impossible for childless couples, individuals, or older people.
Resettlement is never from the country where the acute problem (eg war) exists; it is always from a ‘safe’ neighbouring country, so individuals are usually already safe.
‘Safe’ countries, where people have to languish and wait, actually aren’t necessarily safe for everyone. This can force some people to arrive independently.
The UK government did have resettlement targets (eg 4,000 Syrians per year) but scrapped those targets in early 2021.
The support package makes resettlement expensive for governments.
Some argue that the high level of support can lead to slow progress in achieving good language skills or employment.
The advantages of resettlement (available only to the few) so heavily outweigh those of independent asylum-seeking (the many) that it creates a discriminatory 2-tier asylum system
EDIT (6 Sept 2021) – Here’s a good article by Free Movement.
Advantages of independent asylum-seeking (in the UK)
Individuals have the dignity of choice: they can choose to seek asylum elsewhere, and which country they head for, how they get there, when they travel, etc.
They can choose who they travel with; they could choose to come with parents or adult children, for example.
Individuals can come directly from a war zone and don’t need to languish first in a neighbouring country.
The lack of official support can help resilient individuals to become independent very quickly – learning English, seeking out community support, building supportive networks. Of course, the opposite can be true for those who don’t have that resilience, for whatever reason.
Disadvantages of independent asylum-seeking (in the UK)
Individuals are often forced to undertake very dangerous journeys or to pay unscrupulous traffickers. They must find their travel and subsistence themselves.
The British government has declared that the UK is a ‘hostile environment’ for asylum-seekers and is seeking to dismantle our asylum system via the Nationality and Borders Bill. This will make it illegal to arrive via irregular routes or to pass through safe countries first.
Asylum-seekers do not have the right to work and cannot claim benefits. Instead, they must live on £5.66 per day. This must cover everything they need (other than accommodation) including food, transport, clothing, toiletries, etc. They may not work and have limited access to healthcare. Many become destitute.
It can take anything from a few months to 20 years to get an asylum decision from the Home Office.
Around half of all Home Office asylum decisions are wrong – refusing asylum where it should have legitimately been granted. The courts overturn a high number of these decisions if the asylum-seeker is able to appeal.
Asylum-seekers are often stigmatised and are less visible in their local community, and can find it very difficult to find support.
Asylum-seekers live a stressful and precarious life, and could be detained (with a view to deportation) for virtually any reason at any time. The UK is the only country in Europe to detain people indefinitely – it can be for years without reason or charge.
If the asylum claim is rejected, it basically spells disaster for the individual concerned. Many become destitute.
There’s a lot wrong with the way the Home Office runs the UK asylum system, and it desperately needs an overhaul. But the Nationality and Borders Bill doesn’t in any way address the issues and in fact will only lead to more problems and a more divided society.