IN-DEPTH: ‘Passportless’ Asylum Seekers Fast-Tracked into Care Work Spark Safeguarding Concerns

A group of people thought to be illegal immigrants are brought in to Ramsgate, Kent, England on Aug. 1, 2022. Gareth Fuller/PA Media

Campaigners are concerned that asylum seekers are being fast-tracked into the care and health sectors to address staff shortages and could be bypassing safeguarding checks as many have destroyed their documentation.

Earlier this month it was revealed that asylum seekers, including those who gained entry via illegal Channel crossings, have been given the right to work in understaffed sectors including care and health.

Under Freedom of Information data obtained by The Telegraph, it was found nearly 16,000 asylum seekers in 2022, including those who crossed the Channel in small boats, have been allowed to work in occupations in which there are recognised staff shortages such as construction and agriculture.

However questions have been raised about how proper safeguarding checks can be applied to a workforce lacking documentation, even though care homes are desperate to tackle catastrophic staff shortages.

A Conservative MP told The Epoch Times that he was “profoundly disturbed by the shocking revelations.”

Safeguarding Checks

In the UK, there is no way of working in a care home with the elderly or children without a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check so that employers can examine the criminal records of job applicants.

However asylum claimants and illegal immigrants overwhelmingly destroy identity evidence making it almost impossible to establish someone’s true identity if they choose to falsify it.

According to the British think tank Migration Watch, 98 percent of the thousands who have made their way to the UK illegally in small boats via the English Channel had ditched their passports.

The Home Office has said that many of those coming in boats destroy their documentation during the journey, often on the instructions of criminal people traffickers. This is to make it more difficult for authorities to identify and remove people.

The government’s own Channel threat commander, Dan O’Mahoney, confirmed this in evidence before the Home Affairs Committee in September 2020, saying, “Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, [those crossing] will get rid of any sort of documentation or pocket litter, as we call it in law enforcement—phones, SIM cards, anything—before they are intercepted by Border Force.”

As a general rule, asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK, though they are encouraged to volunteer whilst their claims are being considered. The Home Office may grant permission to work to asylum seekers whose claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months. Most illegal immigrants, especially those that attempt to enter the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats, make a claim for asylum.

Under this policy, those who are allowed to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list which includes care workers and home carers, though most roles in health and social care require an Enhanced DBS Check.

The Epoch Times found reluctance among institutions to address the issue. The Home Office did not respond to The Epoch Times’ inquiries. The DBS, as well as the independent regulator of health and social care in England, the Care Quality Commission, declined to comment.

The Epoch Times also reached out to several safeguarding organisations for comment, but they did not respond.

The Bibby Stockholm accommodation barge arrives into Falmouth docks, Cornwall, to undergo inspection on May 9, 2023. Matt Keeble/PA Media

‘Complete Disregard’

Founder of the campaign group Unlock Care Homes, Amanda Hunter, told The Epoch Times by email that recruitment safeguards are already “far too lax within the care sector,” and that a lack of checks “demonstrates a complete disregard for the health, safety, and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens.”

“From the perspective of someone who has experienced first-hand the inherent risks of allowing migrant workers with little to no experience of care work, and often with minimal English, to work with the frail and elderly, I can only say that the decision to allow illegal migrants to work in the care sector demonstrates a complete disregard for the health, safety, and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens,” she said.

She expressed major concerns that authorities know “little to nothing of their qualifications and work experience, nor—more concerningly still—anything about their backgrounds.”

“How then is it possible to verify that they do not have criminal records, have not perpetrated violent acts, and do not pose a risk to the vulnerable? How can the Home Office justify exposing our sick, disabled, and elderly citizens to such risk of harm?” she added.

She added that UK workers are “required to undergo far more robust background checks (DBS, etc.) to ascertain their suitability for working with vulnerable children and adults.”

Ms. Hunter noted the high profile case of four Nigerian health workers that were jailed in Wolverhampton after they were caught on film physically and emotionally abusing an elderly dementia patient. It is likely, however, that they had some form of checks as visa rules were eased for workers from abroad to fill gaps in social care.

She emphasised that these “cases are not isolated occurrences” and added that she believes they are far more frequent than authorities are willing to admit, “as I can attest from the experiences shared by residents’ families with my campaign group, Unlock Care Homes.”

“Of course, such behaviour is not the reserve of migrant workers, however, when you have male migrant workers, many of whom come from cultures that see care work as ‘women’s work’ and begrudge doing what they deem to be menial jobs for relatively low pay, there is a problem,” she said.

“Recruitment safeguards are already far too lax within the care sector, the skills and language training provided is minimal, and oversight and regulation virtually non-existent. Please, let’s not expose our elderly and vulnerable citizens to even greater risk of harm by allowing illegal migrants to be entrusted to their care. I urge the Home Office to urgently reconsider this foolhardy and deeply dangerous decision,” she added.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell told The Epoch Times by email that he was “profoundly disturbed by the shocking revelations surrounding migrants crossing the Channel and infiltrating crucial, understaffed sectors.”

“The statistics provided by Migration Watch underscore the deeply concerning reality that a staggering 98 percent of these migrants willingly discard their identification, casting serious doubt on the efficacy of DBS checks within the care sector,” he said.

“This not only presents a grave threat to public safety but also establishes a perilous two-tier system, jeopardising the regulatory channels designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals. It is imperative that the government promptly rectifies these deficiencies and places the safety of our communities above bureaucratic oversights. Immediate action is crucial to address this pressing issue and fortify the protective measures in place,” he added.

DBS

The DBS was founded in 2003 amid calls to strengthen the criminal records system after the failure of authorities to find underage sex complaints against the child murderer Ian Huntley. The service processes millions of criminal record checks every year.

However the DBS is unable to access criminal records held overseas.

In cases where an individual does not possess any of these forms of identification, the DBS will still process their check but will need to verify their identity through fingerprinting. At this stage, it is the only remaining option.

In such an instance, an employer could accept alternative documents such as a sworn oath and character reference.

According to a written parliamentary answer from 2021, biometric details are taken from irregular immigrants who arrive in the UK from France by boat.

This includes identity and biometric enrolment based on fingerprints taken, with details checked against law enforcement, immigration, police, and security databases.

It is not possible to check these details against the EU systems to which the UK has access under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement because use of those systems is only permitted for law enforcement, not immigration purposes.

A 2022 report by David Neal, the independent chief inspector of Borders and Immigration, suggested the Home Office failed to collect fingerprints or facial biometrics from asylum seekers.

“Equipment to carry out security checks is often first-generation and unreliable. Biometrics, such as taking fingerprints and photographs, are not always recorded,” he said.