This week, as the Rwanda bill ping-pongs between the Lords and the Commons, delaying even further the government’s unrealistic deportation plans for refugees, an independent commission has published some concrete solutions aimed at permanently fixing Britain’s failing asylum system. As one of the 22 members of this group, I have spent the past two years working on these recommendations, which could improve life for refugees and the wider British public, upskill the UK economy and raise a net income of more than £1bn.
At the same time I have been opposing the scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – the latest contentious and divisive plan from a government that is producing few realistic or cost-effective alternatives in an increasingly polarising area of policy. The government’s strategy to meet its target to clear the backlog of asylum claims by the end of 2023 and the Illegal Migration Act are just two others, and at the time of the commission concluding its work, the next steps on both were still not clear.
As these debates drag on, the reality is that people will continue to seek refugee protection in the UK; and so the need to provide effective, humane integration strategies will also continue. Yet much of the debate is focused on entry to the UK for those fleeing atrocities overseas, and important questions around how refugees can best rebuild their lives once here – considering the best outcomes for them, their local communities and British society – are overlooked.
That’s why the Commission on the Integration of Refugees, an independent commission convened by the Woolf Institute, has undertaken the most significant and detailed exploration of these issues in a generation. Its members have a variety of backgrounds and views – they include a Labour and a Conservative MP; two bishops and a rabbi; the Refugee Council’s Enver Solomon and Policy Exchange’s David Goodhart – showing that agreement from all sides of the political spectrum is possible.
Taking a thorough, thoughtful and evidence-based approach, we have held hearings at eight locations across the UK, listened to more than 1,250 individuals and organisations, including refugees and asylum seekers, policymakers and politicians, local government and civil servants, third-sector workers, academics and faith and community leaders, and commissioned research from organisations including the London School of Economics (LSE).
One finding that struck me powerfully was the untapped potential of so many of those seeking asylum in the UK. We found a strong motivation to work, driven by the positive impact on mental health and sense of purpose and a wish to contribute to their new communities as they rebuild their lives. One man, who took part in the Glasgow hearing, talked of having to turn down jobs because he is still waiting for his leave to remain. “There are lots of opportunities,” he said. “There’s a bright future for me here. I’m ready to contribute, to help people, to pay taxes, but I’m not allowed to.”
Many more told us how they wish they could use their skills here. In a survey of more than 700 refugees and asylum seekers conducted for the commission by Neighbourly Lab, one in three said they have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent, and one in four a master’s-level qualification, but 34% never get to use these qualifications even though they want to. The survey found that 76% of refugees and asylum seekers feel that not being able to use their skills or qualifications means they are not contributing to society as much as they would like.
What’s more, a financial model developed for the commission by the LSE found that a net economic benefit of at least £1.2bn a year by year five is possible by supporting asylum seekers and refugees to work. This can be achieved by providing access to free English language classes from day one and employment support after six months, alongside the government meeting its former target to process asylum applications within six months. The commission calls for asylum seekers to be allowed to work from six months of arriving in the UK, regardless of the progress of their applications.
We also recommend a shift away from centrally controlled budgets and decisions, siloed schemes for different groups of refugees and outsourcing to private contractors. Instead, our recommendations call for “local integration partnerships”, which would put decision-making, delivery and funding in the hands of devolved governments, local authorities and communities.
This requires strong governance and oversight of the whole system – and national government would need to play a coordinating role, including setting overall numbers. To that end, the commission calls for the reinstatement of a UK refugee minister, and the creation of an independent reviewer of refugee affairs who would take advice from people with lived experience as refugees.
For me, these are not just objectively commonsense solutions; they are issues of deep personal importance. My father was the first Persian Anglican bishop in Iran and as a result my family was forced to leave after my brother was murdered and an attempt was made on my father’s life. We arrived in the UK as refugees when I was 14 years old. Compared with many today, I had a soft landing. There was less suspicion towards refugees and no “hostile environment”. We received a welcome and opportunities that enabled us to start a new life and begin contributing to British society.
My work on the commission has been motivated by personal, compassionate and pragmatic considerations, but my fellow commissioners and I could agree that a new deal must be made for refugees in the UK – one that is fair, deliverable and accountable. The current system is expensive, cruel and broken. It’s time for a new approach.
Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani is the bishop of Chelmsford and the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
