Legal Update: Review of Ukraine schemes

Ukrainians migrating to the UK because of Russia's invasion of their homeland have mostly been mothers with children, grandparents, and single women, as well as some unaccompanied children. More than twice as many people have come with no pre-existing link to the UK through the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme as have come through the Ukraine Family Scheme (see in numbers box). This cross-Europe migration has happened amid an upswell of popular sympathy for these particular migrants, evoking echoes of the Kindertransport and Evacuees programmes during World War Two.

System flexibility

There have been strengths and weaknesses in the way that the UK has handled this event, and there is weakness in the strengths, and vice versa. Mobilisation of visa processing happened at speed and new people and resources were brought in, particularly the third sector, to facilitate applicants’ entry to the UK. Certain requirements – such as official translation of documents that would normally have been insisted upon by entry clearance officers – were dispensed with. At the same time, other migrants, who did have a pre-existing link to UK, were finding it more difficult than ever to enter. The digitisation of Home Office processes was shown to be both boon and barrier.

The management of the sponsorship-based Homes for Ukraine scheme has been a success in many areas, particularly so where the local authority has involved community-based organisations to deliver welcoming and integration services. Funding was made available to local authorities quickly, and the interface with the Home Office seems to have worked. However, the very speed of provision seems to have left some local authorities without a proper plan for the dissemination of the funds – for example, many local authorities simply did not make the £200 initial voucher payment to new arrivals, safety checks of homes was perfunctory, and assistance with finding school places was patchy.

While there were numerous examples of good practice, there was very little support for either sponsors or arrivals in some areas, which led to a mismatch of expectations. This was perhaps an inevitable consequence of boiling provision down to a local level. The Ukrainian arrangements were unprecedented and as such, most sponsors had a high tolerance for slight mismanagement as they had entered the scheme with great reserves of goodwill. It appears that the government has realised that it needs to treasure sponsors who are prepared to continue, and the increase in the £350 monthly “thank-you” payment to £500 per month after 12 months of sponsorship is a worthwhile initiative. However, the sponsorship arrangements are scheduled to continue for a maximum of two years and what is to happen after that period is an unknown.

IN NUMBERS

• 8.1m Ukrainian refugees recorded across Europe

• 117k have come the UK under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme

• 48,600 have come to the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme

Source: UNHCR and UK government

Unfairness between schemes

While the Ukraine Family Scheme gave eligibility to enter the UK to join family a wide family-relationship definition, which was much welcomed, the funding for in-country services and welfare support attached to visas granted was not forthcoming in the same way. The differential between the Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine Family Scheme has come to seem, over time, unfair since the benefits of having a sponsor and essentially subsidised/funded accommodation provision are not available to the migrants joining family. The Ukraine Family Scheme seems to have been conceived as a mostly self-sufficient scheme, relying on pre-existing welfare entitlements to universal credit, for example, and while recourse to public funds is allowed for people coming under both schemes, the difficulties with establishing claims fell harder on Ukraine Family Scheme claimants, who had no access to the initial voucher payments nor sponsor support. This must have had an impact for local authorities trying to meet the needs of these children and families.

There are also, still, anomalies in the system whereby the UK-based Ukrainian is unable to sponsor their migrating relative under the Ukraine Family Scheme unless they are settled, which appears to be a disproportionate obstacle to family reunion. This can mean that a Ukrainian father already in the UK on a temporary visa cannot sponsor his wife and children through the Ukraine Family Scheme, whereas a total stranger can sponsor them through Homes for Ukraine.

Demand for sponsors

Meanwhile, institutional-level sponsorship has had pros and cons. Hibernian Football Club, as a community sponsor, brought the Dnipro Kids to Scotland early in the conflict, amid a swell of support for the Ukrainian people. UK-wide, the need for sponsors far outstripped supply, and the Scottish and Welsh Government's response was to offer community “super sponsorship”. While this allowed far more visas to be issued (and indeed Scotland accepted more Ukrainian migrants per head of population than anywhere else – more than twice as many as they committed to welcome), the schemes had to be suspended to new applicants in July 2022 after being overwhelmed with demand. The reality of 700 people living in a passenger liner docked in the Port of Leith is not an ideal outcome, and it is a remarkable achievement that the children appear to have been absorbed into local schools and welcomed without trouble. The families coming under community sponsorship seem to be much more in the frame for follow-on social housing provision, albeit that the funds allocated to address migrant homelessness are not Ukraine-specific.

Private fostering

Proper management of the balance of risk around bringing unaccompanied Ukrainian children to the UK was confused at first and continues to be unclear. The guidance for sponsors in this situation states that the sponsor of a child who is neither coming to the UK with, nor joining, a parent or legal guardian should have known the family before the conflict started, but that if there are exceptional circumstances it might also be allowed (without explaining what these circumstances might be). The “monitoring” and support regime once in the UK is supposed to follow a private fostering model in spirit but this is alarmingly inexact and not necessarily adequate. The private fostering guidance (called the Replacement Children Act 1989 Private Fostering Guidance, published by the now-defunct Department for Education and Schools in 2005) is a poor fit for the types of arrangements that the Ukrainian situation creates, as it envisages a child already in the UK whose views have been sought in private as part of assessing the suitability of the arrangement. Private fostering teams in local authorities are typically poorly funded and not necessarily set up to monitor sponsorship of lone Ukrainian children.

No clear future

It is not clear what the plan is for the future of Ukrainians in the UK – nor if there is a future for them here envisaged by the government. Because the response was, in essence, one of humanitarian protection, the focus up to now has been on responding to this humanitarian emergency. But children, young people and families need to make their futures and make their lives, where they can. This is the perennial difficulty for forced migrants, whether they are from Ukraine or elsewhere.

The government has not said what will happen when the three years’ leave to remain expires for current migrants who have come under the Homes for Ukraine, Ukraine Family Scheme and the extension schemes. It has also not made clear whether fathers will be able to join their families if they are allowed to leave Ukraine, and if so, how. Will young people progressing into higher education be able to count on having a visa for the length of their degree course? Can there be any certainty in planning for this group, which might help with adjustment, integration and good mental health?

It may seem that Ukrainians want to go back to their own country, but that might change over time, depending on what happens in the war. Three years on, children in such families will have made friends and will have integrated in the UK, learned English and achieved educational qualifications under UK systems, and if we listen to their voices we may find that they are saying they feel that they belong here now.

www.childrenslegalcentre.com