Proposal title: Permitting asylum seekers the right to seek employment

Sponsoring director: Karl Tupling, Director of Housing

Sponsoring service: Asylum Team, NCC

Idea origin: Sustainable Communities Panel meeting (February)

Background

There are around 650 asylum seekers (plus dependants) in Sheffield, who have fled persecution from a range of
countries across the globe. The current asylum system requires asylum seekers to claim asylum on entering
the country – they are then dispersed to different towns and cities, including Sheffield, whilst their claim is being
processed.

Since mid-2002, asylum seekers have not been allowed to work whilst their claim is being processed, unless
they have waited for more than 12 months, at which point they may make an application to work. There is no
presumption, even at this stage, that the application will be successful. Instead asylum seekers are reliant on
cash support worth 70% of Income Support, which is paid by the United Kingdom Borders Agency (UKBA).

Asylum seekers are often highly skilled and want to contribute to the city’s economy – for example there are
1100 medically qualified refugees (including over 300 asylum seekers) living in the United Kingdom, who would
not have been allowed to practice whilst seeking asylum. As a city we are not able to make use of the skills and
qualifications of asylum seekers living in Sheffield.

Proposal

The proposal of the Sheffield Sustainable Communities Panel is to allow asylum seekers the right to
work in the city once their application for asylum has been received and they have been dispersed to the
city. Asylum seekers who do not seek (or do not find) employment would still be eligible for the same
support that is available at the moment.

Everybody living in Sheffield would be affected by this proposal, but those groups that would be most directly
affected would be asylum seekers and employers.

The main actions required by Government are to provide employment concessions to enable asylum seekers
who have lodged an application for asylum to make an application for permission to be legally employed, and
except in exceptional circumstances to exercise discretion to grant such permission until any appeal against a
negative decision on any application for asylum has been finally determined and the decision to refuse asylum
upheld

It is not anticipated that any public bodies would be directly affected by this proposal, apart from the United
Kingdom Borders Agency, who would no longer have responsibility for administering Section 95 support for
those asylum seekers who found employment.

This proposal would help the Council to achieve our vision for Sheffield, as set out in ‘A City of Opportunity’. In
particular, the proposal will ensure that asylum seekers are treated fairly and can achieve their full potential, and
will have a good quality of life. It will also mean that asylum seeking children have the same opportunities as
other children in the city, and will help people to get on well with one another and reduce community tensions.

Why does the Sheffield Sustainable Communities Panel think this is a problem for the city?

The Sheffield Sustainable Communities Panel has identified this issue as its top priority for the Sustainable
Communities Act. In discussion, the Panel agreed that the current rules were not morally defensible; did not
support the city’s aspirations as a City of Sanctuary; and did not help to achieve community cohesion. In fact the
Panel held the view that the current rules may contribute to community tensions, and therefore act as a problem
and challenge to the continued wellbeing and sustainability of Sheffield.

In particular, the Panel were concerned that denying asylum seekers the right to work meant that they could not
integrate effectively with the host community, and that there may be longer-term effects in terms of de-skilling if
asylum seekers are granted refugee status. The Panel were also concerned that the city was missing out on
utilising the valuable skills that many asylum seekers possess.

2. Impact on sustainability

How will the proposal help you tackle the sustainability challenges in your area?

The proposal will help tackle a number of sustainability challenges for Sheffield:

 It will help improve community cohesion and integration

There is a widespread perception amongst local residents, both in Sheffield and elsewhere in the country, fuelled
by some elements of the media, that asylum seekers get benefits and support without having earned them. This
perception sits alongside fairly widely held, but untrue, perceptions that asylum seekers get preferential
treatment for social housing and receive money for mobile phones, driving lessons etc . This has led to
problems of community tension and hate crime incidents in areas where asylum seekers are dispersed. [Rachel
– do we have any evidence that this is the case in Sheffield?]

This perception that refugees ‘get something for nothing’ is exacerbated by the fact that asylum seekers are not
allowed to work, which also makes it extremely difficult for asylum seekers to participate fully in the life of the
community to which they are dispersed. For example, participating in most leisure and cultural activities are
beyond the means of somebody living on 70% income support. Asylum seekers are also unable to give anything
back to the city, in terms of paying tax and National Insurance, or indeed contributing to the wider economic
success of the city (although under current rules, asylum seekers are allowed to undertake voluntary work) – this
contributes to the perceived unfairness and inequality in the system.

The fact that asylum seekers are not allowed to work whilst waiting for a decision on their status, also means
that they are risk of becoming de-skilled if their asylum application is eventually successful. This means that it
may be much more difficult for successful asylum applicants to find work and to integrate successfully into the
community. Although volunteering is allowed, and may help asylum seekers to improve ‘softer’ skills such as
communications, teamwork or IT, it is not as useful in keeping professional or vocational skills up to date.

Taken together, the inability of asylum seekers to take up paid work is leading to significant community cohesion
and integration issues – asylum seekers cannot participate effectively in the life of the community and are
perceived by the local population to be getting something for nothing.
  It will help to reduce skills gaps in the city and contribute to the economic development of Sheffield

In Sheffield, 14.5% of adults have no formal qualifications, and skills levels are lower than for other comparable
cities in England. Conversely, 14% of employers in the city report skills gaps and difficulty in recruiting people
who have the skills they need. Businesses – and in particular local enterprise – have a significant part to play in
ensuring the economic sustainability of the city. However, if they are unable to find the skills they need to
expand, then this sustainability is threatened. In particular, businesses may decide to move outside the city to
where they can find people with the skills they require.

Asylum seekers tend to be well qualified – nationally 25% of asylum seekers have a degree level or higher
qualification, with around half working prior to coming to the United Kingdom, and with most being of working
age. Furthermore, many of these qualifications are in short supply in the city, including teaching and medical
qualifications. Around 65% of asylum seekers speak at least two languages in addition to their mother tongue.

If allowed to work, asylum seekers could make a significant positive impact to the Sheffield economy, helping to
fill some of the skills gaps we have identified locally, and supporting the ongoing recovery of the city’s economy.

Over which geographic area will your proposal affect? (e.g neighbourhood, town, city, sub-region)?

This proposal would have a positive effect on the city as a whole. Specifically, it would have a particularly
pronounced effect on those parts of the city where asylum seekers are housed, currently asylum seekers are
living in 21 of the 28 wards of the city.. However in order to be workable, any changes in the rights of
employment for asylum seekers would need to apply equally across the country.

Who would benefit from your proposal?

Asylum seekers would benefit from the proposal by being able to support themselves and contribute more fully
to the life of the city.

More generally, everybody living in Sheffield would benefit from this proposal as community tensions reduce and
improvements occur the way in which people get on with one another. Residents living in those parts of the city
where asylum seekers are housed would particularly benefit from this proposal.

Employers would also benefit from the proposal as they would have a wider pool of skills and qualified people to
draw on, helping to address the skills gap that has been identified in the city.

Please explain how your proposal promotes sustainability as defined by the act and locally.

The concept of sustainability is defined in the Act as ‘encouraging the improvement of the economic, social or
environmental well-being of the authority’s area, or part of its area’.

This proposal would help to improve both the economic and social sustainability of Sheffield. It will help to
improve the city’s economic sustainability by utilising valuable skills that asylum seekers possess in a positive
way for the city, and by helping to address the significant skills gap (particularly in higher level skills) that has
been identified.

The proposal would also help to secure the city’s social sustainability. It would help to end the perceived
unfairness of the asylum system amongst local people, and would help to dispel the notion that asylum seekers
were claiming support that had not been earned. It would also have a positive effect on local communities by
improving cohesion, making neighbourhoods more welcoming and tolerant places, and by integrating asylum
seekers fully into the local community.
Most asylum seekers in the UK live in poverty, experiencing poor health and hunger[1]. Giving asylum seekers
the ability to work would help pull them out of poverty, improving their income and as a consequence, their
health. This would help to reduce inequalities in the city.

The proposal is also in line with the city’s role and commitments as a City of Sanctuary. The Council has
endorsed the City of Sanctuary manifesto, which states that “we are working to make Sheffield a city that takes
pride in the welcome it offers to people in need of safety, and that enables asylum seekers and refugees to
contribute fully to the lives of our communities”. This proposal will help us to achieve those commitments.

What steps will you take to mitigate any adverse effects on sustainability from your proposal (if
relevant)?

The key adverse effect on sustainability identified is that there may be a perception from existing residents that
asylum seekers will take jobs that would otherwise have gone to local people. This would be mitigated by
ensuring that employers have transparent recruitment practices which are based on clear skills-based criteria.
There is also evidence (principally from migrants from A8 accession states) that asylum seekers tend to take up
vacancies that have been unfilled for long periods of time because they are not attractive to the general
population.

What project, activities and changes would take place in your area in your proposal was successful?

Because this proposal would change the rights of asylum seekers to seek employment, no specific projects or
activities are planned. However, we would work with Jobcentre Plus, advice centres, voluntary organisations
and other statutory partners to ensure they were prepared for the impact of the change in advance of it coming
into effect. This might mean, for example, that we would work with advice centres to ensure that they were
aware of the new rights to seek employment.

We would also work with employers, through the Chamber of Commerce, to ensure that employers in the area
were aware of the changes in the right to seek employment, and of the benefits that employing an asylum seeker
could bring. We would also existing relationships (e.g. through the Refugee New Arrivals Project) with
employers to ensure that asylum seekers were able to access employment opportunities in a fair and equitable
way.

Does your proposal involve transfers of responsibilities between public bodies in the area? If so what
are these? What budgetary implications might be involved?

This proposal does not involve a transfer of responsibility between public bodies. There are no budgetary
implications.

Local authorities and the LGA as Selector are required to ‘have regard’ to a set of specific issues when deciding
whether to support SCA proposals. These are matters listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, as passed by Parliament. It
is worth noting that the issues listed in the Act are not supposed to be exhaustive and that ideas can cover
anything that promotes the sustainability of the local area.

Many of these matters may not be relevant to any one proposal. Please identify any which are relevant to this
proposal and include any data and information which you feel would be helpful in the assessment process.

��.1the provision of local services

��.2the extent to which the volume and value of goods and services that are –
��.3offered for sale
��.4procured by public bodies

and are produced within 30 miles (or any lesser distance as may be specified by a local authority in respect of its
area) of their place of sale or of the boundary of the public body (not applicable)
 ��.1the rate of increase in the growth and marketing of organic forms of food production and the local
food economy (not applicable)
��.2measures to promote reasonable access by all local people to a supply of food that is adequate in
terms of both amount and nutritional value (applicable)
��.3the number of local jobs (not applicable)
��.4measures to conserve energy and increase the quantity of energy supplies which are produced from
sustainable sources within a 30 mile radius of the region in which they are consumed (not applicable)
��.5measures taken to reduce the level of road traffic including, but not restricted to, local public
transport provision, measures to promote walking and cycling and measures to decrease the amount of
product miles (not applicable)
��.6the increase in social inclusion, including and increase in involvement in local democracy (applicable)
��.7measures to increase mutual aid and other community projects (not applicable)
��.8measures designed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases (not applicable)
��.9measures designed to increase community health and wellbeing (applicable)
��.10planning policies which would assist with the purposes of this Act, including new arrangements for
the provision of affordable housing, and (not applicable)
��.11measures to increase the use of local waste materials for the benefit of the community (not
applicable)

There are three specific issues set out in the Act, which this proposal will help to address:

��.aMeasures to promote reasonable access by all local people to a supply of food that is
adequate in terms of both amount and nutritional value

This proposal will help to ensure that asylum seekers living in the community have access to an adequate supply
of food. The evidence under the current system is that many asylum seekers are forced to live in poverty without
access to a suitable quantity of food, and Refugee Council research has indicated that many asylum seekers
consequently suffer from malnutirition. This proposal would give asylum seekers a means to support themselves
more adequately whilst waiting for a decision on their application.

The proposal will also have a positive beneficial effect on the children of asylum seekers who are also often
forced to live in poverty because of the low financial level of Section 95 support provided to asylum seekers.

��.bThe increase in social inclusion, including an increase in involvement in local democracy

This proposal will help to improve social inclusion by reducing community tensions and by giving asylum seekers
the means to contribute to their local community. This will lead to better integration and more tolerance of
different groups of people within Sheffield.

��.cMeasures to increase community health and wellbeing

Giving asylum seekers the right to seek paid employment will also help to increase community health and
wellbeing. Employment has been shown to be a key contributor to good health and wellbeing, with mental
health conditions such as stress and depression associated with not being in work. This is especially the case
with asylum seekers who may have fled war, conflict and human rights violations to come to this country.

3. Existing barriers

The only barriers to this proposal are legislative – councils have no discretion to alter the right to seek
employment as this is a national issue. It is therefore within the power of Government to put this proposal into
practice.
4. What is the precise government change required?

The Government could amend Rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 with
regard to the practice to be followed in the administration of the Immigration Acts for regulating entry into and the
stay of persons in the United Kingdom and/or introduce or amend or revoke such other legislation as it considers
may be required to minimise the employment restrictions and achieve the outcome.

Currently the right to request permission to take up employment states:

360 An asylum applicant may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment which shall
not include permission to become self employed or to engage in a business or professional activity if a decision
at first instance has not been taken on the applicant's asylum application within one year of the date on which it
was recorded. The Secretary of State shall only consider such an application if, in his opinion, any delay in
reaching a decision at first instance cannot be attributed to the applicant.

360A If an asylum applicant is granted permission to take up employment under rule 360 this shall only be until
such time as his asylum application has been finally determined.

The Government could relax the provisions to allow for an application to be made within a much shorter time
frame or immediately after lodging an application for asylum and to continue until any appeal against a negative
decision on any application for asylum has been finally determined and the decision to refuse asylum upheld.

5. Risks

A number of risks have been identified:

 There is a risk that, in a recession, people may see this as a threat to being able to secure employment
for existing residents.

This risk would be mitigated by explaining that asylum seekers may have a range of skills that are not available
locally in the workforce, and that asylum seekers would not gain any preferential treatment in applying for jobs.

 There is a risk that employers would not employ asylum seekers because they did not understand the
changes to the regulations

Currently, employers risk substantial fines if they employ asylum seekers who are not permitted to work. These
fines would not apply if this proposal were taken forward. However, there is a danger that employers would not
be aware of the changes – this would need to be addressed through good communications with the business
community, particularly through representative organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the
Federation of Small Businesses, and through organisations representing refugees and asylum seekers such as
the Refugee New Arrivals Project.

 There is a risk that this measure would act as a ‘pull’ factor, encouraging more asylum seekers come to
this country

Research undertaken by the Refugee Council has shown that most asylum seekers are not economic migrants –
in fact the top ten refugee producing countries in 2006 all had poor human rights records or were suffering war or
other conflict. And 2004 research by ippr has shown that there is an “absence of any evidence that access to
welfare benefits or employment are significant ‘pull’ factors influencing the decisions of asylum seekers to come
to the UK”[2]

6. Financial implications

What are the financial implications for the Council primarily, but also nationally if possible, of the proposal?
There are no direct financial implications for the Council of this proposal. The financial implications for the
Government are positive in that less money will be spent on Section 95 support to asylum seekers, and there
may be a small net increase in taxation revenue (e.g. National Insurance and income tax) arising from previously
unemployed asylum seekers entering the jobs market. There may be some additional casework for the United
Kingdom Borders Agency which is responsible for assessing requests for permission to undertake employment.

7. Consultation with affected bodies

No bodies are affected in terms of having powers or budgets transferred, and therefore there is no requirement
to carry out consultation under the terms of the Act. However, the UKBA have been consulted on the proposal
and their response is: [insert response when received]

8. Consultation with residents

This idea was proposed by the Sheffield Sustainable Communities Panel and is heavily supported by the Panel
following two discussions. Of the ten proposals under consideration for submission to the Selector at the end of
May, this proposal was in the Panel’s top four ideas.

This proposal has the support of the Sheffield Refugee Forum which represents refugees and asylum seekers in
the city.

[1] Refugee Council and Oxfam, Poverty and Asylum in the UK, 2002

[2] Making it Work. Asylum and Migration Working Paper 6, ippr, 2004