Cameron Watt: Destitute asylum seekers deserve dignity

At Christmas, we are encouraged to consider those less fortunate than ourselves. With parties to attend, presents to buy and cards to write, there is never much time to do this. However we may manage to part with a few coins for the Salvation Army carol singers, or even Send a Cow to Africa. One exceptionally vulnerable group whose plight will be almost completely overlooked this Christmas are the tens of thousands of destitute asylum seekers throughout Britain.

The Government has lost control of our borders; in recent years Britain has experienced an unprecedented and unsustainable level of immigration. Urgent action is clearly needed to bring immigration down to a more sustainable level. An obvious starting point is targeting a reduction in economic migration from countries outside the EU, and David Cameron has committed to explicit annual limits on non-EU immigration, set at a level substantially lower than the current rate.

Currently almost three-quarters of the approximately 25,000 asylum claims made each year are turned down. However urgency to regain control of our borders and reduce the rate of immigration must not be accompanied by an indifference to asylum seekers. A civilised country should ensure that they are treated humanely both while applications are being considered and during unsuccessful applicants remaining time in this country.

As Nick Spencer has written:

“The fundamental tension in asylum policy is between the moral imperative of welcoming the vulnerable and the judicial imperative of securing borders against the dishonest.”

Presently our asylum system is failing in both these tasks.

For all the talk in recent years of ‘getting tough’, our asylum system has abjectly failed in helping to secure the UK’s borders. Home Office figures show that while only 23,610 people claimed asylum in 2006 (the lowest annual total since 1993), the Government missed its deportation target. Only 6,780 failed asylum seekers were removed in the first half of this year, down from 10,345 in the same period last year. The compound effect of such incompetence is that there is now an estimated 450,000 ‘legacy’ asylum cases, some dating back a decade, still to be resolved.

Our asylum system has also failed to provide the welcome and care that could be reasonably expected of a civilised and wealthy society. Asylum seekers whose applications are unsuccessful are legally obliged to leave the UK. Many readers will share the view of a commenter on this website who said that:

“Failed asylum seekers should not be in this country more than 30 minutes after being rejected.”

However with fewer than 3,000 places available in immigration detention centres, holding failed asylum seekers in custody is not a viable option for the vast majority. And immediate deportation is often impossible. Courts may refuse to deport them back to countries deemed unsafe. Some are in the late stages of pregnancy, or have just given birth. Others are unfit to travel for other medical reasons. Many simply do not have the financial resources to purchase a ticket home, and so must apply for and await assisted return.

These people are left with an unenviable choice. The only support provided by Government at this is point is ‘Section 4’ assistance which is supposed to provide shared accommodation on a no choice basis and a £35 food voucher each week which can only be used in a limited range of shops. Since 1994 there has been a 15-fold increase in the number of failed asylum seekers in receipt of Section 4 support.

What is life like on Section 4? A recent CAB report gives some insight:

On a cold, damp winter’s day in Feburary 2006, Daniel – an elderly Kenyan – took Citizens Advice on a tour of the small, terraced house where he had been living for the past three weeks. On the kitchen floor, a plastic bowl slowly filled with water leaking from a hole in the ceiling. In the bathroom, Daniel showed us the two sources of this deluge: a cracked sink and broken toilet bowl.

In his bedroom, where paper peeled from damp, mouldy walls, he pointed out another: the water tank in a cupboard. Around both this cupboard and Daniel’s bed – for which he had been given a thin duvet but no sheets or pillowcases – the carpet was sodden. Had Daniel contacted his ‘landlord’ [M&Q, a private company contracted by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS)] about these problems? Yes, repeatedly. Had anything been done? No, nothing had been done. Daniel – already weakened by almost four months of homelessness and destitution – was worried about his health.

Unsurprisingly, many decide that they are unable to subsist on £35 a week and thus simply ‘disappear’ from the system. So many failed asylum seekers end up completely dependent on charity provided by churches and voluntary groups (such as Open Door North East).

In Newcastle-upon-Tyne alone, it is estimated that there are more than 300 destitute asylum seekers. Between 20 and 30 are estimated to be sleeping outdoors overnight. Thousands are estimated to be without legal status (failed their asylum claim) yet are still living in Newcastle and supporting themselves by working illegally. They are effectively 'underground' and extremely vulnerable to exploitation.

Sayeeda (now Baroness) Warsi participated in an enquiry examining the problem of destitute asylum seekers in Leeds which reported earlier this year. It said there was a ‘compelling case for rescuing them from the stark reality of being homeless,hungry and hidden.’ One of its proposals, for failed asylum seekers to be given a limited right to work – and therefore support themselves – was given short shrift by the readers of this blog. Whatever the merits of that particular proposal, the report sets out some useful principles for reform, such as the priority of keeping asylum seekers engaged in the system and encouraging and enabling them to make a contribution to society.

Everyone wants a fast, efficient, fair and humane asylum system. With hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers out of reach from the authorities, very limited capacity for detention, and a backlog of cases that will take many years to clear, new thinking is needed. Decisive action is required, but any new measures should not push more asylum seekers into destitution. Effective policy is likely to be that which upholds the dignity and humanity of this vulnerable group.

The Centre for Social Justice is currently examining how the asylum system could be reformed, with a particular focus on addressing the problem of destitute asylum seekers.

Comments

[Editor]

A great piece Cameron full of humanity. Thank you.

[Tony Makara]

I agree. If we are to exercize strict rules on asylum seekers that does not mean we have to treat people like animals while they are here. Having done security work in the past I know that many people are given to sleeping in places like graveyards and canal banks. Places where they are less likely to be disturbed. One night we were doing a security check in a cemetery at around 4am and came across a pitiful character who knew little English and it saddened me that we had to move this fellow out of the graveyard. He said he felt safer there because he had been assaulted in the town centre, attacked for being homeless. This sort of thing goes on all the time and is largely unseen by the public. More must be done to make life safer for asylum seekers. These people are human beings, not statistics or demons. Lets show that we are a civilized and compassionate nation.

[Conservative Homer]

As Far as im concerned we dont need an asylum policy. Refugees should claim asylum at the first port of call. We are practically never the first port of call. You need only look at the location of sangatte or sangette II refugee camp to see that every other country delights in fobbing its unwanted off on us.
I often hear people saying that we must do our part and accept our share. All that i can say to that is maybe if countrys like South Africa had to bear the total brunt of the fallout from Zimababwe, maybe their approach to Zimbabwe would be somewhat less disgusting than it has been for the past 10 years.

99% (NOT 75%) of asylum seekers should not be in the UK. Period. Asylum isnt about getting into a country of your choice, its about the first safe country, nothing more. And if we're in Accords or agreements that say otherwise, we should get out of them.

[Tony Makara]

Its very important to separate the genuine refugee from economic or political migrants like Viraj Mendis. When a persons life is in danger they should not be deported, the same applies to humanitarian cases, ie, if a woman faced stoning or birching in a country as a result of religious retribution.