“We are treated like we don’t matter and that hurts. Nobody plans to leave their home countries to seek asylum. Our situations are not in our control, but we get blamed and scorned for seeking safety.

We thrive in our communities if given the chance. Making sure this happens should be a priority in the UK Government’s plans to reform the asylum system, rather than putting us into centres separated from the rest of the world. Showing humanity to people fleeing persecution is the right thing to do. We are all human beings and deserve to live in dignity and safety.”

Saffie, Voices Ambassador

Everybody deserves to live in a place where they feel safe and secure. As individuals who have been forced to leave our homes, families and communities, who have fled war, violence, and persecution, and have sought sanctuary in a foreign country, VOICES Ambassadors are experts by experience. We have been through, and many of us are still within the asylum system.

Overview

As a network, we have long recognised that the asylum system as it stands is in dire need of redress to support us in the UK. At present the system fails to set out safe routes, leaving many to embark on deadly journeys to reach safety. Once in the UK, we can wait over a year – for many, several years – for decisions on our claims to be made. All the while, we are housed in poor and unsafe conditions with little access to legal, financial, or mental health support.

The Nationality and Borders Bill should address these issues and expand safe routes for people to reach the UK, it should improve the decision-making process, and it should provide effective and timely support. Far from it, the Bill as it stands further complicates the asylum process and punishes those who arrive in the UK via ‘irregular’ routes, restricting or denying the ability to safely reunite with our families, and limiting or denying access to public funds leaving us at high risk of destitution. The Bill treats us as a burden to be offshored out of sight and out of mind.

While The Bill is hailed by the Home Office as a means to increase fairness to applicants, to quash human trafficking, and to deter irregular journeys into the UK, the reality is that that The Bill will neither stop nor reduce the number of people seeking sanctuary in the UK. It will, however, leave them at risk of destitution, exploitation, abuse, and as we have seen far too regularly, death. The VOICES Network advocates creating safe routes for people to reach the UK, but in its current condition the Nationality and Borders Bill is unfit for these challenges.

The VOICES Network’s Vision for a Fairer and More Compassionate Asylum System

• Focus on why people come to the UK to seek safety, not how they arrive.

• Invest in people seeking asylum and let us contribute to society by giving people seeking asylum the right to work.
• Tackle the root causes of forced migration by providing support and investment to other nations. We would not have fled from home if we were not forced to.
• Provide tailored mental health support for refugees and people seeking asylum throughout the process.
• Offer accessible safe routes for all who need protection. Resettlement is not enough. Provide additional routes such as work visas to reduce pressure on the asylum system.
• Take an individual approach to asylum claims and clearly communicate timescales. The long delays, fear, lack of communication and uncertainty devastates our mental health.
• Expand the family reunion criteria to reduce the need for people to make dangerous and desperate journeys.
• Give people early access to legal advice so we can understand our rights and responsibilities in relation to claiming asylum. This will prevent negative decisions which are eventually overturned and destitution.

“We, as asylum seekers and refugees, worry a lot about the proposed government immigration plans. Refugees and asylum seekers need compassion, understanding, as much as shelter. Because believe me, there are few things in this world worse than the feeling of an unwelcome guest.”

Khansaa, VOICES Ambassador

Our Primary Concerns

1. Differentiated treatment of refugees

• Clause 11 of the Bill lays out differentiated treatment dependent on how people arrive in the UK. This is not a just or fair way to assess claims, punishing people rather than protecting them.
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 11

2. Restrictions on refugee family reunion

• Family Reunion is an important safe and legal route to seeking asylum in the UK. Clause 11 will heavily restrict family reunion.
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 11

3. No Recourse to Public Funds

• Stemming from the differentiated treatment, Group 2 refugees will be unable to access public funds should they need it
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 11

4. Establishing asylum accommodation centres 

• Clause 12 would mean people are required to live in large scale accommodation centres rather than in community-based dispersal accommodation as is currently the case.
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 12

5. Asylum application and decision-making process

• The current asylum decision-making process faces severe challenges including people facing years of delays, poor quality decision-making and a culture of disbelief facing asylum applicants, the bill will only make this worse.
• Clause 15 sets out powers for the Home Office to refuse to admit someone’s claim for asylum in the UK if they consider the person has passed through a ‘safe third country’.
• Clauses 17, 18 and 25 create what the Home Office calls a ‘one stop shop’ approach – where someone is expected to provide all their evidence by a specific date and their credibility is damaged if they provide evidence late or the Home Office thinks they did not act in ‘good faith’
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 15, 17, 18 and 25. 

6. Offshoring of the asylum process

• Offshoring poses a huge risk to the physical and mental well-being of those who are forcibly removed from the UK until the decision on their status has been made.
• Clause 28 and Schedule 3 creates powers for the Home Office to send someone to another country for processing while they have a pending asylum claim.
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 28 and Schedule 3.

7. Criminal penalties

• It is not illegal to claim asylum, it is a human right. The UK government has committed to uphold the right to asylum as a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
• Clause 39 creates a criminal offence of arriving in the UK without entry clearance and increases criminal penalty for entering without leave or arriving without a valid entry clearance, or overstaying a grant of leave, from 6 months to 4 years.
• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 39.

8. Age assessments

• We are deeply worried by the proposed changes to age assessments. These changes will increase the chances of children being wrongly deemed adults and consequently being put at risk in adult accommodation or in detention centres.
• Part 4 of the bill creates new powers for the Home Office to carry out age assessments instead of local authorities (Clause 49 and 50) and for the use of so called ‘scientific methods’ to assess someone’s age (Clause 51)
• The VOICES Network believes these clauses should be removed from the bill.  

“We agree that the asylum system if broken, but it is broken for the people who have gone through it. In fact, it breaks us.

Refugees and asylum seekers are framed as the problem without the government even trying to help us address out problems to be positive members of society. Their new immigration plans will make our problems and suffering much worse.”

Mo, VOICES Ambassador

1. Differentiated Treatment of Refugees

The argued purpose of clause 11 is “to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to the UK other than via safe and legal routes”. The Bill separates refugees into two distinct groups based upon how they arrive in the UK.

• Group 1: Includes those who managed to arrive directly from the country they were fleeing from, or who were in the UK on another visa and applied for asylum before it expired.
• Group 2: Covers all other refugees, including those who have travelled through other countries before arriving in the UK ‘irregularly’. This would apply to the vast majority of refugees recognised through the UK’s asylum process.

This distinction would allow the Home Office to treat refugees who have successful asylum applications differently depending on which group they fell into. Those in Group 2 would be given “temporary protection status” this status dramatically reduces leave from 5 years, as in Group 1, to only 30 months. Furthermore, individuals in Group 2 will have limited access to family reunion and their access to public funds will be revoked. The bill is ignorant of the realities of those seeking asylum.

These changes will inflict further suffering. The way someone arrives does not determine whether they are a genuine person seeking asylum.  The proposal to grant a 30-month Temporary Protection visa is cruel and will cause further suffering to families who have already experienced high levels of trauma. We have many members, colleagues and friends who arrived in the UK through ‘irregular’ routes and have their genuine need for protection recognised by the Home Office. With support and rights people arriving through ‘irregular’ routes can go on to be thriving, contributing member of society. The government’s primary concern should be why people have come and what they need protection from, not how they have arrived. 

As experts by experience we firmly believe that the Bill will not succeed in its objectives as it fails to address the underlying reasons as to why people seek safety in the UK. As such, the changes laid out will not prevent people seeking asylum in the UK. Those who enter in ‘irregular’ ways are desperate, a lack of benefits and 30-month visas will not deter people who are willing to risk their lives to get here. Research shows that people who find are persecuted or displaced very rarely have knowledge of any national asylum system. Most only learn the details of access to work, welfare and the asylum policies once they arrive. People make desperate journeys to the UK to seek safety, and often to escape poor treatment in France or due to family or language connections in the UK.

“The UK Government don’t understand what it is to flee danger. There shouldn’t be restrictions on how people get to safety in the UK”

…

“In most cases there is no way to apply for visas or ‘safe and legal routes’. When you are in war the embassy closes first and you are left alone”

Ngozi, VOICES Ambassador

The government should understand that rather than being disingenuous economic migrants, those who arrive ‘irregularly’ are some of the most vulnerable who have undertaken dangerous and traumatic journeys to flee from persecution. The planned reforms will perpetuate the insecurity and uncertainty of the lives of these people with damaging implications for their mental health. Such insecurity will result in an increased risk of trafficking and exploitation.

Many refugees who arrive ‘irregularly’ use every penny they have, to make the journey to safety in the hope of reuniting with family who remain in danger. People who use smugglers are often left in debt and exploited. Only vulnerable and desperate people would make these journeys.

Safe and Legal Routes are not accessible to everyone in need of protection, the proposed Bill fails to lay out viable ‘regular’ routes to safety in the UK. Seeking protection is by nature incredibly risky and can be rushed –leaving most people without the time to access safe and legal routes. Furthermore, safe and legal routes are only available to a small minority of refugees, in the correct place, with time, awareness of those routes and the resources to apply for them.

If the option of asylum for those entering through ‘irregular’ routes is taken away, from our experience we believe that it is likely to result in an increase in people over-staying visas as well as increasing the opportunity for unscrupulous people to take advantage of those in desperate situations, for example increasing the sales of false documents. Significant research shows that restrictive immigration policies do not reduce the number of people entering a country, rather, they increase the number who enter via other means, increasing their vulnerability and leaving them susceptible to becoming victims of modern slavery. Furthermore, illegal work in the UK is detrimental to the economy.

Treating refugees who arrive irregularly with harsher policies will not deter or reduce dangerous journeys but instead lead to more delays in the system, increase destitution and the need for support services. Inadmissibility rules will lead to an increase in the delay in decision-making and backlog the asylum system.

“When you are in a difficult position – you do not choose which route to follow. You go wither to a refugee camp in the neighbouring country for years or the other option people have been forced to pay smugglers to reach safe places because there is no other route.”

VOICES Ambassador

1.1 Temporary Protection Status

The proposal to grant a 30-month Temporary Protection visa is cruel and will cause further suffering to families who have already experienced high levels of trauma. Limiting access to family reunion and public funds will deny our ability to rebuild our lives in the UK and be positive members of society. The temporary protection status for Group 2 refugees will have a devastating impact on integration. 

The Bill is bare in terms of details on renewing leave. Additionally, given the track record of the Home Offices ability to process claims in a timely, efficient, and fair manner, the decision to create a category of refugees with temporary 30-month protection status will only add to the 70,905 (as of June 2021) backlog of applications.

Beyond cruelty, this feature of the Bill is in administrative terms a disaster waiting to happen.

“Refugees make unimaginable journeys and abandon everything to seek safety. The UK Government’s plan to introduce a 30-month visa with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) and limited family reunion rights, to punish refugees who arrive through ‘irregular routes’ is deeply worrying.”

…

“We shouldn’t be forced to retell our traumas every 30 months. This will destroy people’s mental health. We cannot integrate or even survive without our families. This will damage communities and prevent us reaching our true potential.

Saffie, VOICES Ambassador

1.2 Recommendations on the Differentiated Treatment of Refugees

• The VOICES Network strongly recommends the removal of Clause 11. 
• Stop the punitive plans for a two-tier asylum system and judge asylum claims on the need for protection, not how people have entered the UK.

• The VOICES Network recommends increasing safe routes to the UK, including family reunion, resettlement, work and study visas, and community sponsorship to reduce the need for dangerous and ‘irregular’ journeys.
• Invest in conflict resolution to help address the root causes of forced displacement

By expanding existing, and creating new, safe routes, to give people safe alternatives, the government can aim to reduce the number of people forced to take dangerous journeys to reach protection in the UK. Safe routes are not an alternative, but complementary, to a fair, humane and effective asylum system. Instead, this Bill currently seeks to limit refugee family reunion, a key safe route, that enables family members, usually vulnerable women and children, to reunite with their loved ones in the UK.

It is imperative that people forced to take these journeys are not discriminated against and are treated fairly.

“Human rights have been destroyed by a group of people not knowing what really happened for people who fled their countries for safety. I don’t understand why they are talking about the broken system; they know exactly what they are doing. They don’t say anything about people with lived experience’s (PWLE) contributions to society – not presenting the good side.”

Simon, VOICES Ambassador

2. Restrictions on Refugee Family Reunion

“We know how difficult it is to rebuild our lives without our families by our sides. Preventing family reunion will damage individuals, families and communities and will prevent any positive integration.

VOICES Ambassador

Extending from the differentiated treatment of refugees, the family reunion rights for those in Group 2, while largely unclear, are explicitly restrictive and risk significantly reducing the number of families able to reunite in safety. We cannot express enough the level of disproportionate harm this would cause to the would-be recipients of family reunion visas – 90% of whom are women and children. The VOICES Network recommend the removal of Clause 11 and the expansion of the family reunion criteria. 

We recognise Family Reunion is one of the few and important safe and legal routes for refugees to come to the UK. As it stands however, the current family reunion process often forces family members to navigate war zones, flee sexual violence, hide for fear of imprisonment of abuse, and even pay smugglers in order to reach a place where their paperwork can be processed by officials acting for the Home Office. The British Red Cross’s recent report ‘The Long Road to Reunion: Making Family Reunion Safer’ found that 49% of families in the family reunion process were exposed to these enormous risks, just to provide documents and personal information like fingerprints.

Family Reunion should be accessible for all, not only the small number of refugees who are resettled. We all deserve to live in safety with the members of our families; restricting family reunion for those granted temporary protection will inflict deep suffering for people who have already experienced great hardship. The impact of family separation cannot be overstated. Our families are a part of who we are and without our families’ we are being denied happiness, the freedom to succeed, and the ability to integrate and contribute fully to society.

The Family Reunion process in its current form is in great need of redress. Its complexity and restrictiveness combined with the waiting times around receiving refugee status makes it difficult to navigate, and in the case of many comes too late. Many refugees who arrive through ‘regular routes’ still face agonizing delays in the asylum process which prolongs family separation, exacerbates suffering, poor mental health and negatively impacts integration. At the end of March 2020, 31,516 people (61%) had been waiting over six months for an outcome on their initial claim for asylum. As people await a decision on their asylum claim their children or family members age and can become ineligible for family reunion, particularly when children turn 18 tearing families apart.

“Six difficult years passed before I was granted refugee status, I had to lodge many further submissions and appeal negative decisions before I was finally granted refugee status. Only then could I sponsor my daughters who are now studying at university and college. I do not want other refugees to experience this heartache.”

Maria, VOICES Ambassador

“For 20 years I have lived in the UK but I still do not have a refugee status. My children and husband are my life but we remain permanently separated. My life has stopped. It is inhuman to treat people like this.

Suzan, VOICES Ambassador

2.1 Recommendations on Refugee Family Reunion

• The VOICES Network Strongly Recommends the removal of Clause 11
• Rather than restricting family reunion rights for some refugees, the government should be seeking to increase access to family reunion for all refugees, regardless of how they entered the UK.

• Expand the criteria of who qualifies as a family member for the purposes of refugee family reunion allowing adult refugees in the UK to sponsor their adult children and siblings who are under the age of 25, and their parents.
• Give unaccompanied refugee children in the United Kingdom the right to sponsor their parents and siblings who are under the age of 25 to join them under the refugee family reunion rules.
• Reintroduce legal aid for all refugee family reunion cases

Too many families face incredible risks and difficulties to make their family reunion happen through the existing route. The government should address problems of the existing family reunion route by implementing the British Red Cross’s recommendations in the “Long Road to Family Reunion” report:

• Reduce the number of journeys a family must take to an Embassy, and only after a positive decision on their case has been made.

• Be flexible on how and when a family submits their biometric information if they cannot reach a visa application centre safely.
• To allow families to take a tuberculosis test on arrival rather than in advance, which requires an additional journey.
• For the visa application centres to be flexible on their strict ID requirements that result in families being denied entry.

Temporary protection status will have a devastating impact on integration. We know how difficult it is to rebuild our lives without our families by our sides. Preventing family reunion will damage individuals, families and communities and will prevent any positive integration.

“My family are a part of me. Without them I lost my identity. I lost my hope to live. I felt like my oxygen had gone and I couldn’t breathe.

The government’s policy of keeping families apart is heartless. It does the opposite of the government’s own aim to ‘protect life and ensure access to our asylum system is reserved for the most vulnerable’. The most vulnerable are our partners, children and loved ones who are stuck in danger and war at home. The most vulnerable are those of us left empty without our families. Without our families we can never be okay. We can never be productive and healthy members of society. How can you live when your family are stuck in a war?”

Ahmad, VOICES Ambassador

3. Limiting Access to Public Funds and Impact of No Recourse to Public Funds

The proposed changes in the asylum would see that Group 2 refugees and their family, who are granted temporary protection, have No Access to Public Funds. This means that they would be unable to rely on the welfare system, universal credit, child benefit, and local authority homelessness assistance, should they require it.

The VOICES Network wholeheartedly rejects the proposed changes to access to public funds and asylum support eligibility.

The changes will most definitely see an increase in homelessness and poverty amongst people seeking refugee protection, including children. For years, enforced destitution has been part of the Home Office’s approach to force people to return to their country of origin following a refusal of asylum. However, numerous reports have not only highlighted the inhumanity of this approach, but equally the fact that ‘hostile environment’ measures are not effective even on the Government’s own terms.

Enforced homelessness and poverty should never be a built-in feature of the UK’s asylum system; our asylum system should be designed to protect, not to punish. In giving people refugee status, the UK Government has recognised that the individual in question cannot return home. If refugees are unable to access key elements of the social welfare system, then it increases the likelihood of them facing destitution and homelessness. In turn, this would potentially put them at great risk of exploitation, especially in relation to women and children.

“Close your eyes for seconds and put your foot in any asylum seeker’s shoe. Vulnerable, voiceless, powerless, and struggle in the middle of the sea with your loved ones running away from the war that you can’t stop or change… and when you are safe at the end on a secure and safe country… you will be asked to learn a new language, new culture, and stuck in a frozen asylum system living with £5 per day in a dispersal accommodation or in a hostel with £8 per week or trying to deal with your life in barracks with no financial support or any human rights.”

Zaina, VOICES Ambassador

3.1 Recommendations on Limiting Access to Public Funds

• The VOICES Network strongly recommends the removal of Clause 11.
• End the use of NRPF and do not restrict access to public funds for people who have arrived in the UK through irregular routes. This undermines our human rights and betrays the UK’s long history as a welcoming nation.

4. Establishing Asylum Accommodation Centres

The VOICES Network have produced a briefing on asylum accommodation wherein we have expressed in great detail our concerns over institutional forms of accommodation such as barracks, detention centres, hotels, and the proposed use of reception centres, the full briefing can be found here.

Clause 12 of the bill would mean people are required to live in large scale accommodation centres rather than in community-based dispersal accommodation as is currently the case.

Institutional forms of accommodation including barracks, detention centres and the proposed use of reception centres are not suitable places for people to live. These types of accommodation deprive people of their liberty, the conditions experienced are often retraumatising and are known to create short-term and longer-term mental health issues. Our experience of asylum accommodation is that it is often unfit for people to be living in. It has been found to be dirty, unmaintained and in some cases, vermin infested.

The Home Office awards private company’s contracts for housing people seeking asylum, they are for profit companies and are not adequately concerned with the welfare of the people they house. There is a lack of accountability for the company’s providing accommodation.

“Asylum accommodation should keep us safe and protected but it often re-traumatises and puts vulnerable people at risk, especially those of us forced to live in army barracks and hotels. This isn’t living, it is just existing at the mercy of the Home Office.”

Abdullah, VOICES Ambassador

4.1 Recommendations on Establishing Accommodation Centres

• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 12
• End the use of military barracks immediately – their implementation was careless and cruel, and they continue to be so, destroying the mental health of those detained there
• Asylum accommodation should be designed for human beings. 
• The treatment of those in asylum accommodation should be humane.
• The government should introduce a formal, third-party inspection regime to ensure transparency and accountability

“For many of us, life in the camp only increased our insecurities and re-traumatised us. It would be difficult to design a system that more perfectly delivers despair and deteriorating human health and mental capacity than these asylum camps”

Kenan, VOICES Ambassador

5. Asylum Application and Decision-Making Process

Both the VOICES Network and the UK Government recognise that the growing backlog of asylum decisions is of concern and will require time and investment to shape into an effective and fair process. As it stands, however, the bill will effectively destroy an already weak system.

Clause 15 puts the inadmissibility rules that are currently contained within the immigration rules and that came into force in 1 January 2021 into primary legislation. Rather than address the current issues, the rules only add to the delays. For cases that are potentially inadmissible, the Home Office’s current guidance provides a six-month window to get an agreement from another country for the individual to be removed there. During this period, the individual is left in limbo, with no progress being made on their asylum claim. If no agreement is possible, the application then goes on to be considered by the Home Office (ie. Delay more and more and more).

Clause 15 highlights the lack of measures contained within the bill that will improve decision making within the asylum system. The number of people waiting over six months for a decision on their asylum claim has more than doubled over the last two years. These changes will only increase these delays.

“There are people who just stay home Monday to Sunday, they don’t have any place to go, they don’t study, they don’t [do] anything, and then just stay without nothing, and then just wait until the Home Office will give them an answer, and most of these people experience depression, stress, and then some of them, they are lost.”

We Want to Be Strong, But We Don’t Have the Chance Report

Clause 17, 18 and 25 create what the Home Office calls a ‘one stop shop’ approach – creating powers to serve an evidence notice that sets a date for the person to provide evidence in support of their protection or human rights claim and a principle that person’s credibility is damaged if they provide evidence late, or are seen by the Home Office to fail to act in ‘good faith’ and any later evidence should be given minimal weight by decision-makers.

The systemic and historical failures of Home Office decision-making are extremely well-documented, including that Home Office decisions rely on unrealistic and unlawful demands for evidence, and that Home Office decision makers have a default position that people are not telling the truth. These new proposals do not address those failings and if anything, make them worse, creating an unrealistic expectation on ‘early’ provision of evidence that ignores the impact of trauma on the time it can take to disclose experiences. The effects of trauma make it difficult for us to present our cases in one go –people may not be able to speak about traumatic events on demand and may suffer confusion over the details of specific events. Further, situations in home countries are not static but constantly evolving and further evidence may emerge which needs to be submitted.

The current system does not help asylum seekers to explain their cases, when cases are not well-presented poor decisions are made. From our lived experience, we know the impracticality of providing the evidence which the Home Office demands. When we make the difficult decision to leave our homes and flee from war or persecution, we do not have the opportunity to fill a briefcase full of evidence. Furthermore, in cases where refugees have experienced persecution from the State, any evidence of persecution may have been destroyed.

The burden of proof further disproportionally affects LGBTQ+ people who seek asylum, the nuances of which have been brought forward to parliament previously and can be found here. The culture of disbelief in the decision making process also has a gendered impact, with many women seeking asylum feeling like they have been left unheard and disregarded, the full report on the experience of women in the asylum system can be found here.

“I think the first thing, I think the culture of the Home Office this needs to be scrubbed first… They make it hard for you, even for the criminal law they say you are innocent until they find evidence you are already a criminal, but with immigrations, that is the opposite, it’s ‘you are lying until you prove otherwise’. It makes it more difficult, so you have to search for the proof and even after you bring proof, they say this proof is fake, it’s not right, so it’s a really complicated matter.”

We Want to Be Strong, But We Don’t Have the Chance Report

5.1 Recommendations on Asylum Claims and Decision Process

• The VOICES Network strongly recommends the removal of Clause 15, 17, 18 and 25
• People’s claims should be assessed on their reasons for claiming asylum not their journey to the UK, the inadmissibility rules will create even further delays and distress for people seeking asylum and do not address the reasons why people are forced to take long, and dangerous journeys to seek safety.
• People should be able to provide further submissions of evidence. The effects of trauma make it difficult for us to present our cases in one go –people may not be able to speak about traumatic events on demand and may suffer confusion over the details of specific events. Further, situations in home countries are not static but constantly evolving and further evidence may emerge which needs to be submitted.
• ‘In good faith’ is a principle that should apply to the Home Office as well as claimants and their representatives. Our claims should be believed and considered genuine unless proved otherwise.
• The government must work to tackle the culture of disbelief that pervades the asylum system. The current system does not help asylum seekers to explain their cases, when cases are not well-presented poor decisions are made.
• The Home Office should put improving asylum decision-making at the heart of its plans for reform of the asylum system; decisions should be made fairly and in a timely manner and should be right the first time.  Better initial assessments and decisions as well as improved access to legal representation would reduce the need for appeals. 44% of asylum appeals were successful last year which indicates that they are necessary as initial decisions are not accurate.
• The Home Office should introduce regular, accessible communication with applicants as they go through the asylum process, such as text message updates on the progress of their application.

“The whole process can take many, many years and that’s the most frustraiting thing, for a lot of asylum seekers.”

…

“When you go to the Home Office, they expect you to start form zero again, and it’s something that’s really hard to go through because if you have to go through the pain you want to forget … in my case it was really, really hard to go through that.”

We Want to Be Strong, But We Don’t Have the Chance Report

6. Offshoring the Asylum Process

“Through my asylum journey, I get to know that, unfortunately, governments are dealing with refugees and asylum seekers as a number in the news. But here I am. I am not a number. I am human. A person. A mother who has been forced to flee her home country, leaving three children behind. This is not something I wanted, but I had to.”

Khansaa, VOICES Ambassador

Clause 28 of the Bill would allow for removal of those who are seeking sanctuary in the UK, even if they have applied for asylum in the country. The derived purpose of this clause is to process asylum claims outside of the country. The Bill itself, however, is vague about how this would work, where we would be placed, what it would mean for our futures, and how mental and physical safety and well-being would be protected – if at all.

The prospect of offshoring is inhumane. Already the system treats people seeking asylum with little care, placing us in hostile, poorly equipped, isolated environments such as detention centres, hotels, and army barracks. Already we live with the threat of indefinite detention and are forced to relive our trauma. To be removed from the UK, offshored to live in cruel conditions out of sight and out of mind, with no clear end in sight, is truly a detestable and merciless course of action for the UK Government to take.

The VOICES Network, and the experiences we share, wish to make it clear that the offshoring process will not reduce dangerous journeys. When you flee your home there is no time to research destinations, many of us had never heard of what it was to seek asylum, we had no idea where we would end up nor the countries’ legal procedures. Offshoring requires us to arrive in the UK first, revealing it to be a punishment for seeking sanctuary, rather than a means of protecting us. Offshoring the UK’s asylum process will have significant humanitarian consequences, posing significant risk to the health and wellbeing of those who are removed under the policy. It is likely to increase the length of family separation, result in longer asylum processing times, and ultimately lead to unstable outcomes for people in need of protection.

6.1 Recommendations on the Offshoring of the Asylum Process

• The VOICES Network strongly recommends the UK does not adopt a policy of offshoring the asylum process
• The VOICES Network also recognises that the current systems in place to accommodate people seeking asylum are poor and are in need of remedy
• Those who arrive in the UK should be treated with humanity, as people not ‘asylum seekers’. We are people who deserve to live in safe and dignified accommodation.
• The use of reception centres will isolate people seeking asylum from their communities which has a damaging impact on mental health and integration.

“We are fleeing war and persecution and our trauma always lives with us. Being put in a cramped army barrack, detention centre or solitary hotel room makes us relive difficult pasts. This destroys mental health and denies people seeking asylum the right to truly rebuild our lives. This treatment of people seeking asylum is a stain on Britain’s global reputation for being a welcoming and generous country.”

Abdullah, VOICES Ambassador

7. Criminal Penalties

The Home Office states that a driving factor behind the proposed bill is to crack down on smugglers and criminal gangs who exploit the immigration system and have little to no regard for the lives that are placed in their hands. The hypocrisy of this statement is astounding given the disregard the bill has for the lives of people seeking asylum and refugees.

Clause 39 will make arriving in the UK without entry clearance a criminal offence. It will also increase the criminal penalty for overstaying a grant of leave, from 6 months to 4 years.

It is not illegal to claim asylum, it is a human right. The UK government has committed to uphold the right to asylum as a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention and we challenge the intention to make it a criminal offence the seek to enter the UK. We do not stand alone in this challenge, the UNCHR has warned that the bill will undermine our commitment to the convention.

It has been proven through practice that restrictive immigration policies do not reduce the number of people entering a country, rather, they increase the number who enter via other means. Restrictions on the few ‘regular’ means of entry, such as family reunion, will serve only to increase the vulnerability of those seeking sanctuary and leave them susceptible to becoming victims of modern slavery.

Those arriving by boat or lorry do so because there are no other viable options for them, only one placed in a desperate situation would risk their life in order to find sanctuary. To punish the people who have experienced significant trauma, not only in their home countries but often on their journeys as well, is cruel and unfair.

At present, the Government’s plans will serve only to punish those seeking asylum rather than the smugglers. The UK government needs to ensure that it is not adding to the trauma that those who seek asylum have already experienced.

“Showing humanity to people fleeing persecution is the right thing to do. We are all human beings and deserve to live in dignity and safety.”

Saffie, VOICES Ambassador

7.1 Recommendations on Criminal Penalties

• The VOICES Network recommends the removal of Clause 39
• The bill will punish those who seek sanctuary in the UK, not the smugglers
• Claiming asylum is a human right, the Government’s insistence on treating it as criminal fosters a culture of distrust, hatred, and misunderstanding. This must change.

8. Age Assessments

Part 4 of the bill created new powers for the Home Office to carry out age assessments instead of local authorities (Clauses 49 and 50) and for the use of so-called ‘scientific methods’ to assess someone’s age (Clause 51).

As a network, we are deeply worried by the proposed changes to age assessments. These changes will increase the chances of children being wrongly deemed adults and consequently being put at risk in adult accommodation or in detention centres.

There is no scientific method of assessing age. X-rays (teeth or bones) and sexual maturity exams are invasive and do not lead to an accurate age determination and are widely criticized by medical professionals.

The experience of trauma, stress, fleeing home and being torn apart from loved ones can impact children and young people, at times making them appear older that they are. Aging is a nuanced process that does not impact everyone in the same way at the same time.

Legislating for frontline immigration officers to assess age on the basis that someone is significantly over the age of 25, rather than the current age of 18 is harmful and will result in children being denied their rights and adequate support at critical stages in their lives.

For an individual young person, the significance of the decision of their age assessment is enormous and an incorrect decision can cause significant trauma. When people first arrive in the UK they are often exhausted and confused after difficult journeys.

Children and young people need safety and time to recuperate before proper assessments are carried out.

8.1 Recommendations on Age Assessments

• The VOICES Network recommend the removal of Clauses 49, 50, & 51.
• It should be social services that complete the age assessments rather than the Home Office.
• Age assessments should not be conducted immediately after arrival and children and young people should be allowed time to rest and recuperate first.

Conclusion and Call to Action

The asylum system in the UK as it stands is in a state of great disrepair. The VOICES Network welcome redress, however, the Nationality and Borders Bill is a cruel and unjust piece of policy that seeks to punish rather than protect refugees and those who seek sanctuary in the UK.

Everybody deserves to live in a place where they feel safe and secure. As individuals who have been forced to leave our homes, families, and communities, who have fled war, violence, and persecution, and have sought sanctuary in a foreign country our concerns and recommendations come from a place of experience.

We are calling on parliamentarians to work with us on the urgent concerns we have set out in this brief. We cannot stand by and allow this legislation to pass – the devastating impact it will have on our lives, and the lives of those in the future who seek safety in the UK, is immeasurable. 

We must raise our voices and demand positive change.

From the previous briefing you can understand how much this ‘Anti-Refugee’ Bill will fundamentally rewrite the UK asylum system and curtail the rights of refugees. It will increase destitution and homelessness, add to the backlog of asylum cases which leaves people living in limbo, and will separate families, forcing them to make dangerous journeys to safety. We raise our voice in the VOICES network to call this Bill to be thrown out and replaced with proposals for an asylum system that is kinder, fairer and more effective.