Refugee protection in 2021: tipping point investments in the UK

Written by Dylan Footohi and Will Somerville

2021 promises to be the most important year for refugee protection in the UK in over a decade. The UK will play a particularly prominent role, domestically and internationally.

The UK government, led by Boris Johnson’s Conservative party, has promised a major overhaul of the asylum and refugee system, the centrepiece of which is proposed new anti-asylum legislation. Later in the year, Johnson hosts major international conferences, such as the G7 and COP26, as he hopes to reset the UK’s role in the world after Brexit.

What is the government responding to? How should non-profits and foundations supportive of refugee protection react?

2021 will be consequential regardless of new laws, as a rare confluence of powerful, system shaping moments are coming together.

Most obviously the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic sets the agenda of what is possible. For example, Covid-19 has paused plans for the UK’s refugee resettlement program. In the period between 2015–2020 the UK government decided to expand and innovate in resettlement , while continuing high levels of investment in UNHCR. At the time of writing no decision on the future of the refugee resettlement system for this year, or beyond, has been made, but an announcement is expected soon.

Despite lower numbers of both resettled refugees and “spontaneous” (meaning those seeking protection who claim in-country) arrivals overall in 2020, Covid-19 has increased strains on the system. In particular, there is a refugee determination backlog and increased housing need and destitution.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of refugees coming to the UK over the last 20 years have done so spontaneously, i.e., not through any formal resettlement program. For the public and political debate, a major spike in maritime arrivals[1] from North West France (with people crossing the Channel from France in small boats) has inflamed the Far Right and provoked a fierce response from the Government — straining public finances and exacerbating housing needs, where people and families seeking protection are being placed in deeply unsuitable accommodation. More than 70,000 asylum seekers are currently being housed by the government, around 10,000 people in hotels and converted army barracks.

The UK Government has continued to steadfastly oppose spontaneous arrivals, both in terms of rhetoric and policy[2]. The narrative of challenging the legitimacy of claiming asylum on arrival is widely expected to be at the heart of the government’s reform program.

It’s worth emphasising here that this is a UK system problem made worse by the pandemic, not a sudden surge of people arriving. There were 35,700 people who made a spontaneous asylum claim in the UK in 2019. Initial data from the Home Office suggests spontaneous claims are down a fifth in 2020[3].

We also know that survey evidence[4] from non-profits show the legacy of the pandemic to date for people seeking asylum and recent refugees has been severe. There have been clear increases in food poverty, deteriorating mental health, new housing needs and isolation. The current system of adjudication, accommodation, welfare and support for refugee integration is simultaneously expensive and, where evidence allows us to say so, is not fit for purpose, revealing poor outcomes.

Furthermore, Covid-19 is not the only system shaping event that the UK is contending with.

Superimposed on the pandemic will be the consequences of Brexit. From January 1 of this year the UK has had a new relationship with the European Union, affecting things like how those who make an asylum claim in Europe but arrive in the UK are returned or not (safe third country rules).

Changes in the international order will also influence systems. The plans of the Biden administration for a more than eight-fold increase in refugee admissions marks the return of US leadership on refugees. The decision of China to impose a National Security Law on Hong Kong and the UK’s decision to permit a path to citizenship for up to 5.4 million Hong Kong residents sets up a different wildcard event in 2021, where the UK Government has estimated 120,000 arrivals this year — a small but important number of who will have protection needs.

As important is the protests last year in the UK against racial injustice and the consequences of the 2018 Windrush scandal, which exposed structural discrimination in the Government and the devastating impact of hostile immigration policies, with members of the Windrush generation forced into destitution, and in some cases, deported away from their homes in the UK. The Government commissioned a formal review[5] and after a long delay and at the height of racial justice protests in the Summer of 2020, promised to implement all 30 of the Review’s recommendations, accompanied by the commitment that policies will be “rooted in humanity”.

It’s in this post-Brexit, pandemic-riven context that the Johnson administration plans new legislation. Briefings to date suggest the new law is driven less by evidence on what works and more in ensuring that the government’s reputation for hard border security will not be comprised among the voting public. Proposed measures thus aim to bear down on spontaneous arrivals and what the Government sees as vexatious legal claims[6].

In short, 2021 — the 70th anniversary year of the signing of the Refugee Convention in which the UK played a major role in drafting — will see a transformation of the UK’s approach to refugees, with a focus on curtailing spontaneous arrivals and little evidence that long-standing challenges of support and adjudication will be addressed.

How then should nonprofits and foundations try and make a difference? There are over 500 charities in the UK focused on migration and refugee issues and many rely on a very small cadre of donors. Their resources are carefully husbanded to provide for people who are vulnerable and with immediate needs[7].

In contrast, our bias is towards supporting civil society actors committed to system change, with an emphasis on unleashing the agency of those with lived experience of being a refugee — whether upholding rights and dignity in the adjudication process or through enabling people with a refugee background to contribute and commit to UK society.

First, we take the view that we should encourage leadership by and for people with experience of being a refugee. The last two years has seen a major push by many non-profits to encourage people into leadership positions and address barriers to progression to senior roles of those with a refugee background. There is also an increasing focus on ‘experts by experience’ to inform service design and advocacy asks. This needs to go further, faster.

Second, charities and donors should encourage the government to make good on their multi-year commitment to expanding refugee resettlement. The Government’s direction of travel going into 2020 was to renew the UK’s commitment to refugee resettlement as part of a holistic UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS). This should be confirmed and reinforced with a multi-year commitment. Our view is that it is feasible to take at least 10,000 refugees a year with a wider eligibility criteria[8]. Such a commitment would put the UK alongside the US in renewing global leadership to safe routes. It would also provide local government and nonprofits with the stability to build up services and a culture of welcome. In addition, the community sponsorship program in the UK is a major success and could be expanded[9].

Third, increase refugee family reunification and other safe and legal routes. The moral rationale for refugee family reunion is straightforward but it also makes it more likely that refugees succeed. The current UK system is extremely narrow in its definitions of family, excluding siblings, parents and adult children for example. A combination of a multi-year resettlement commitment, family policy that recognizes extended family[10], and other routes (complementary pathways) should be the bedrock of safe and legal routes.

Fourth, a new approach to screening, adjudication and housing. Spontaneous asylum arrival is an avenue of entry that stands outside of the carefully managed selection and vetting processes that generally govern the rest of an immigration and border management system and is central to public concern. Spontaneous arrivals will not be eliminated by new safe and legal routes. Instead, both new arrivals and the public deserve an orderly process where those arriving spontaneously (whether on a beach in Kent or on a flight) are given due process to prove their life is at risk and a quick decision on whether they qualify for safety. The current UK asylum and immigration policy prohibits asylum seekers from accessing the labour market and public funds, and restricts their entitlement to housing, education, and healthcare. While asylum claims are being processed, the government provides people with accommodation (often poor quality and low standard) and a low level of financial support. People in asylum process do not have the right to work, and therefore unable to provide for themselves and to contribute. This comes at a high cost for both the government and people who seek asylum, effectively forcing people into destitution and makes them passive recipients rather than active citizens. An alternative approach would be an asset-based refugee integration approach.

Fifth, unlocking opportunities for refugees to succeed. The current system sets people newly recognised as refugees up to fail. There is a lack of transition from housing, a gap in employment rates (with good evidence that initial work prohibition is partly to blame), lower-quality education and English language learning options and so on. The goal should simply be a level playing field — where people get a fair chance.

Finally, none of this can be achieved without building public support for a welcoming, fair system of refugee protection. The lack of evidence of ‘what works’ in proposed legislation is beside the point. The government believes that it has support for punitive measures against asylum seekers. Until those who support refugee protection invest in telling the story of an alternative, fair vision and persuading the public that this is a more effective, humane approach that accords with our values, we will not be able to make such an approach real.

AUTHORS

Dylan Footohi is Programme Manager at Migration Exchange funder network, founder of Refugees for Justice, a grants committee member of the Justice Together Initiative, and a member of Young Academy of Scotland — Royal Society of Edinburgh. He has previously worked as a Service Manager and a Development Officer at Scottish Refugee Council, and as a Senior Community Development Officer at Freedom from Torture.

Will Somerville is the UK Director of Unbound Philanthropy. In addition to his Unbound role, he is a Senior Fellow for the think tank the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and a Visiting Professor (Politics) at the University of Sheffield. He also sits on the Board of More in Common.

[1] The increase in maritime arrivals from across the Channel began in 2019 and has several causes, but the increase in arrivals in 2020 is likely the result of the pandemic. Furthermore, Brexit has complicated the Anglo-French relationship, which has always been a pre-requisite of effective responses to unauthorized arrivals from France (see for example the Sangatte negotiations and agreement in 2001–02).

[2] As we discuss below, in December 2020, new rules were introduced that spontaneous asylum claims would be inadmissible for those passing through a “safe” third country, which would apply to those crossing the Channel. However, these new rules come at a moment when Brexit has meant the UK’s withdrawal from European agreements on asylum (Dublin agreements on return, Eurodac access on data sharing and so on). In other words, this is a development that is likely to be challenged in the courts but is operationally somewhere between difficult and impossible.

[3] See: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/covid-19-has-reduced-uk-immigration-across-all-main-routes-in-2020/. The average number of claims in the last decade, which have been fairly stable, are substantially lower than the numbers in the early 2000s.

[4] See evidence from the Respond and Adapt Fund (RAP): https://www.ragp.org.uk/data-hub

[5] The full, official Windrush Lessons Learned review is here.

[6] Technical “non-entrée” rules such as extra territorial processing are likely to figure prominently in the proposed legislation.

[7] See: Migration Exchange, Taking Stock and Facing the future report: https://global-dialogue.org/taking-stock-and-facing-the-future/

[8] House of Commons research noted that between January 2014 and March 2020, 26,308 people were resettled to the UK, mainly from Syria and the surrounding region. Resettlement accounted for around 22% of the people granted humanitarian protection in the UK since 2014. The goal of 10,000 per year would require additional infrastructure but is entirely feasible — perhaps arguably a modest aspiration. Of course, scaling up to 10,000 per year would require the capacity to identify large numbers of refugees in need of resettlement, screen them for eligibility and document their profiles, match them with resettlement states, and to do so on a tight timeline that does not delay states in moving refugees’ cases through the resettlement pipeline. The UK could build on existing infrastructure to do this efficiently, such as the Emergency Transit Mechanisms in Rwanda and Niger or former US-led resettlement centres in Kenya, Jordan, and elsewhere. It may also be valuable to explore options for taking referrals for resettlement from non-UNHCR partners, as is done in the US and Canada. The re-entry of the US into the resettlement space is likely to further stretch UNHCR’s existing referral capacity, and alternatives may be needed to maintain the resettlement pipeline. See: Susan Fratzke and Lena Kainz, The Next Generation of Refugee Resettlement in Europe: Ambitions for the Future and How to Achieve Them, 2020. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/next-generation-refugee-resettlement-europe; and Will Somerville and Alasdair Murray, Building the Future: Immigration and Integration in the Next Decade, 2018. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e9ef0be1f6c190462853033/t/5eb40e5f2034480e3f27eea1/1588858479800/ramp-building-the-future-v12.pdf.

[9] It has now spread to other European countries, including Germany, Ireland, and Spain. These programs change the way resettlement is implemented by transferring some responsibilities from governments to sponsoring groups or organizations, often including a role in refugees’ selection, travel, and reception, typically with the aim of improving integration supports and building more welcoming communities. See: Refugee Sponsorship Programs: A Global State of Play and Opportunities for Investment (Brussels: MPI Europe, 2019).

[10] This could be done a combination of streamlining the application process, offering legal aid and reduced fees for reunion under the existing immigration rules, expanding the definitions of family eligible for reunification, or by allowing for the named sponsorship of family members, though one of the resettlement programmes.